Can We Justify God?

February 17, 2013

Joshua, my son, you would have been 28 today.  I miss you, and yearn to hold you again.  One day….yes, one day.  Till then, rest peacefully.

 Joshua died  at the age of sixteen. I offer this chapter out of my ebook on The Shack and spiritual recovery in his honor.

********

Oh, the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

Romans 11:33-34 (NIV)

The death of a child, especially the brutal murder of Missy, raises passionate questions about God’s handling of the world. Mack’s “last comment” to the Triune God around the breakfast table on that first morning was something we have all thought at one time or another: “I just can’t imagine any final outcome that would justify all this” (p. 127).

There it is. Bold. In God’s face. It is almost a gauntlet challenging God’s own imagination, his own resources—his wisdom and knowledge. Can anything justify the evil in the world?

This is the problem of theodicy, that is, the justification of God. Why does God create a world in which evil is so pervasive, strong and unruly? Why does he give evil this space to grow? When a cyclone kills over 130,000 in Myanmar, an earthquake snuffs out the lives of 80,000 more in China, and a tsunami kills about 20,000 in Japan, I have little interest in defending or justifying God.

When my son dies of a genetic disorder after watching him slowly degenerate over ten years and I learn of the tragic death of a friend’s son (John Robert Dobbs)—both dying on the same date, May 21—I have little interest in defending or justifying God.

How could I possibly defend any of that? I suppose I could remove God from responsibility by disconnecting him from his creation but I would then still have a God who decided to be a Deist. That’s no comfort—it renders God malevolent or at least disinterested. I prefer to say God is involved and he decides to permit (even cause–though I would have no way of knowing which is the case in any particular circumstance) suffering. I would prefer to hold God responsible for the world he created and how the world proceeds.

I’m tired of defending him. Does God really need my feeble, finite, and fallible arguments in his defense? Perhaps some need to hear a defense—maybe it would help, but I also know it is woefully inadequate at many levels. God does not need my defense as much as God needs to encounter people in their crises. My arguments will not make the difference; only God’s presence will.

I know the theodices and I have attempted them myself. Young utilizes a few of them. A free-will theodicy that roots evil in the free choices of human beings does not help me with earthquakes, genetics and cyclones. It certainly does not explain why God does not answer the prayers of his people with compassionate protection from such. A soul-making theodicy that says God permits evil to develop our characters does not explain the quantity and quality of suffering in the world. Suffering sometimes breaks souls rather than making them. There are other theodicies and combinations, but I find them all pastorally inadequate and rationally unsatisfying.

My rationalizations have all shipwrecked on the rocks of experience in a hurting and painful world. The way I most often approach God in the midst of suffering is now protest, a form of lament.

Does God have a good reason for the pervasive and seemingly gratuitous nature of suffering in the world? I hope he does—I even believe he does, but I don’t know what the reasons are nor do I know anyone who does. My hope is not the conclusion of a well-reasoned, solid inductive/deductive argument but is rather the desperate cry of the sufferer who trusts that the Creator has good intentions and purposes for his creation. I believe there is a Grand Purpose that overcomes the Great Sadness.

Lament is not exactly a theodicy, but it is my response to suffering. It contains my complaint that God is not doing more (Psalm 74:11), my questions about “how long?” (Psalm 13:1), my demand to have my “Why?” questions answered (Psalm 44:24), and my disillusionment with God’s handling of the world (Job 21, 23-24). It is what I feel; it is my only “rational” response to suffering.

I realize that I am a lowly creature whose limitations should relativize my protest (as when God came to Job). But, as with Job and the Psalmists, I continue to lament—I continue because I have divine permission to do so! Of all “people,” I must be honest with God, right? I recognize that my feeble laments cannot grasp the transcendent glory of the one who created the world and I realize that were God to speak he would say to me something of what he told Job. But until he speaks….until he comforts…until he transforms the world, I will continue to speak, lament and protest.

But that response is itself insufficient. I protest, but I must also act.

As one who believes the story of Jesus, I trust that God intends to redeem, heal and renew this world. As a disciple of Jesus, I am committed to imitate his compassion for the hurting, participate in the healing, and sacrifice for redemption. I am, however, at this point an impatient disciple.

Does this mean that there are no comforting “words” for the sufferer? No, I think the story itself is a comfort; we have a story to tell but we must tell it without rationalizing or minimizing creation’s pain. We have a story to tell about God, Israel and Jesus. God loves us despite the seeming evidence to the contrary. God listens to our protests despite our anger and disillusionment. God empathizes with our suffering through the incarnation despite our sense that no one has suffered like we have. God reigns over his world despite the seeming chaos. God will defeat suffering and renew his creation despite its current tragic condition. The story carries hope in its bosom and it is with hope that we grieve.

Mack could not “imagine any final outcome that would justify” all the evil in the world. This is something that Mack says before he sits on the judgment seat before Sophia, but it is a function of the judgment seat to decide what would justify evil and would not. If humans can’t imagine it, then it can’t be possible, right? And that is the crux of the problem—human imagination has become the norm rather than trusting God’s wisdom and knowledge that is beyond searching out, plotting or understanding.

Human imagination or trust in divine wisdom? Which shall we choose? The former, as a criterion, excludes the latter. The latter is patient with the former’s limitations.

But trust is the fundamental problem. At the root of distrust is the suspicion, as Papa tells Mack, “that you don’t think that I am good” (p. 126). We humans tend to trust our own imagination (or rationality) more than we trust God’s goodness. We doubt that “everything—the means, the ends, and all the processes of individual lives—is all covered by [God’s] goodness” (p. 126).

In one of the most powerful scenes in The Shack Papa acknowledges that he could “have prevented what happened to Missy.” He “could have chosen to actively interfere in her circumstance,” but he decided not to do it (p. 222). Only love enabled Mack to trust God with that decision.

We can’t imagine what could possibly justify evil? But, at one level, that is the wrong question. God’s purpose is not to justify it, but to redeem it (p. 127).

My favorite scene in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ is when Jesus, carrying the cross, falls to his knees under its weight. His mother runs to him and their eyes lock. With blood streaming down his cheeks and holding the symbol of Roman power and violence, Jesus says, “Behold, mother, I make all things new.”

This is the promise of God—a new creation, new heavens and a new earth in a new Jerusalem. There the old order will pass away and the voice of God will declare: “I am making everything new” (Revelation 21:5a).

A day is coming when there will be “no more curse” (Revelation 22:3). There will be no more darkness–the glory of God will fill the earth with light. There will be no more violence–the nations will receive healing and walk by its light. There will be no more death, mourning or tears–the Tree of Life and the Water of Life will nourish the people of God forever.

That renewal, however, is not simply future but is already present. Hope saves us even now. As the Father pours out his love into our hearts by his Spirit, includes us in the Triune fellowship at his breakfast table, and walks with us in our suffering, we can experience the joy of relationship, the peace of love and the hope of renewal.

Mack discovered it when he learned to trust. We will too.


Reading Malachi

July 2, 2012

“An Oracle. The word of Yahweh to Israel through my messenger.”

Malachi is the Hebrew word for “my messenger.” It is uncertain whether the Hebrew term is a proper name (Malachi) or a general description (messenger). The name is unknown elsewhere and “Malachi” is not associated with any particular region or lineage unlike other prophets. Some Jewish traditions identified “my messenger” with Ezra. Whatever the case, the unique—and most suggestive—term in this superscription is “oracle.”

“Oracle” (or “Burden”) only occurs here and in Zechariah 9:1 and 12:1. It seems likely that these three oracles form a trio of sorts, but the style of Zechariah 9-14 is rather different from that of Malachi. Perhaps a later prophet uses the term to connect with the other two oracles and delivers it in a subsequent era. While Zechariah 9-14 are probably located in the early later ministry of Zechariah (480s-470s), Malachi is probably best located closer to the end of that century (440s-430s). In any event, Malachi continues the prophetic tradition of Zechariah 9-14 and concludes the “prophets” of the Hebrew Bible and the Protestant Old Testament canon.

The situation Malachi presumes sounds similar to the situation at the time of Nehemiah. An administrative official in the Persian Empire, Nehemiah was permitted to go to Jerusalem in 445 B.C.E. to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and establish the province’s territorial integrity. He returned to the Persian capital at Susa in 432 B.C.E and upon his return to Jerusalem found the city unfaithful (Nehemiah 13). In particular, five thematic concerns connect Malachi and Nehemiah:

  1. Mixed marriages (Mal. 2:11-15; Neh. 13:23-27).
  2. Failure to tithe (Mal. 3:3-10; Neh. 13:10-14).
  3. No Sabbath-Keeping (Mal. 2:8-9; 4:4; Neh. 13:15-22).
  4. Corrupt Priests (Mal. 1:6-2:9; Neh. 13:7-9).
  5. Social Problems (Mal. 3:5; Neh. 5:1-13).

Malachi—or the messenger—probably served as a prophet who supported Nehemiah’s reforms. This “oracle” addresses the social and theological questions that dominated the postexilic community in Judah in the late 440s-420s during the reign of the Persian Emperor Artaxerxes (465-425).

The prophet addresses a discouraged people who engage Malachi’s message in a protracted dialogue. The text follows follows a form something like this:

Malachi addresses the people.

The people question the message.

Malachi responds to their question.

The people have apparently lost hope in the postexilic promise (like Zechariah 9-14). They sense God’s abandonment and how irrelevant the practice of their faith has become to their lives. Their questions reveal a disconnect between God’s covenant promises and their day-to-day lives. Disappointed with how their lives have unfolded since their return from exile, they maintain the appearance of faith without the heart. Faith was no longer profitable. They went to “church,” declined to give their best, and went home to live as they pleased. Religion had become irrelevant.

If time of Nehemiah is the correct setting for these messages, the people had indeed suffered much. They were heavily taxed (Nehemiah 5:4) by an oppressive power who occupied their homeland. Many borrowed money or sold their children into economic servitude in order to pay taxes (Nehemiah 5:14-15). They were under constant threat of attack from surrounding provinces and marauders (Nehemiah 4:16-18). They lived in constant fear. Oppressed, they saw little hope in the future.

Consequently, when Malachi appears with a message from Yahweh, the people are skeptical. The ask questions. Given the questions the people ask, the book may be read through the lens of those questions and is neatly divided into six sections.

Malachi

Question

Theme

1:2-5 How Have You Loved Us? Identity
1:6-2:9 How Did We Insult You? Honor
2:10-16 Why Does Not God Accept Us? Faithlessness
2:17-3:5 How Did We Wear You Out? Justice
3:6-12 How Did We Rob You? Repentance
3:13-4:6 What Have We Said? Hope

These questions, while socially located in the Persian post-exilic period, are nevertheless perennial questions. These questions have appeared on the lips of God’s people throughout biblical and post-biblical history. Malachi’s response provides some guidance for wading through the brokenness and disappointments of life even now.

How does faith become relevant again? Malachi offers some direction. Faith is about identity, honor, covenant, justice, repentance and hope. These themes raise major questions but they also contain the seeds of a faithful response to discouraging and chaotic times.


God and Evil: Can God Be Justified?

May 21, 2012

May 21 is a dark day in my own history. Joshua died eleven years ago today at the age of sixteen. I offer this chapter out of my ebook on The Shack and spiritual recovery in his honor.

********

Oh, the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

Romans 11:33-34 (NIV)

The death of a child, especially the brutal murder of Missy, raises passionate questions about God’s handling of the world. Mack’s “last comment” to the Triune God around the breakfast table on that first morning was something we have all thought at one time or another: “I just can’t imagine any final outcome that would justify all this” (p. 127).

There it is. Bold. In God’s face. It is almost a gauntlet challenging God’s own imagination, his own resources—his wisdom and knowledge. Can anything justify the evil in the world?

This is the problem of theodicy, that is, the justification of God. Why does God create a world in which evil is so pervasive, strong and unruly? Why does he give evil this space to grow? When a cyclone kills over 130,000 in Myanmar, an earthquake snuffs out the lives of 80,000 more in China, and a tsunami kills about 20,000 in Japan, I have little interest in defending or justifying God.

When my son dies of a genetic disorder after watching him slowly degenerate over ten years and I learn of the tragic death of a friend’s son (John Robert Dobbs)—both dying on the same date, May 21—I have little interest in defending or justifying God.

How could I possibly defend any of that? I suppose I could remove God from responsibility by disconnecting him from his creation but I would then still have a God who decided to be a Deist. That’s no comfort—it renders God malevolent or at least disinterested. I prefer to say God is involved and he decides to permit (even cause–though I would have no way of knowing which is the case in any particular circumstance) suffering. I would prefer to hold God responsible for the world he created and how the world proceeds.

I’m tired of defending him. Does God really need my feeble, finite, and fallible arguments in his defense? Perhaps some need to hear a defense—maybe it would help, but I also know it is woefully inadequate at many levels. God does not need my defense as much as God needs to encounter people in their crises. My arguments will not make the difference; only God’s presence will.

I know the theodices and I have attempted them myself. Young utilizes a few of them. A free-will theodicy that roots evil in the free choices of human beings does not help me with earthquakes, genetics and cyclones. It certainly does not explain why God does not answer the prayers of his people with compassionate protection from such. A soul-making theodicy that says God permits evil to develop our characters does not explain the quantity and quality of suffering in the world. Suffering sometimes breaks souls rather than making them. There are other theodicies and combinations, but I find them all pastorally inadequate and rationally unsatisfying.

My rationalizations have all shipwrecked on the rocks of experience in a hurting and painful world. The way I most often approach God in the midst of suffering is now protest, a form of lament.

Does God have a good reason for the pervasive and seemingly gratuitous nature of suffering in the world? I hope he does—I even believe he does, but I don’t know what the reasons are nor do I know anyone who does. My hope is not the conclusion of a well-reasoned, solid inductive/deductive argument but is rather the desperate cry of the sufferer who trusts that the Creator has good intentions and purposes for his creation. I believe there is a Grand Purpose that overcomes the Great Sadness.

Lament is not exactly a theodicy, but it is my response to suffering. It contains my complaint that God is not doing more (Psalm 74:11), my questions about “how long?” (Psalm 13:1), my demand to have my “Why?” questions answered (Psalm 44:24), and my disillusionment with God’s handling of the world (Job 21, 23-24). It is what I feel; it is my only “rational” response to suffering.

I realize that I am a lowly creature whose limitations should relativize my protest (as when God came to Job). But, as with Job and the Psalmists, I continue to lament—I continue because I have divine permission to do so! Of all “people,” I must be honest with God, right? I recognize that my feeble laments cannot grasp the transcendent glory of the one who created the world and I realize that were God to speak he would say to me something of what he told Job. But until he speaks….until he comforts…until he transforms the world, I will continue to speak, lament and protest.

But that response is itself insufficient. I protest, but I must also act.

As one who believes the story of Jesus, I trust that God intends to redeem, heal and renew this world. As a disciple of Jesus, I am committed to imitate his compassion for the hurting, participate in the healing, and sacrifice for redemption. I am, however, at this point an impatient disciple.

Does this mean that there are no comforting “words” for the sufferer? No, I think the story itself is a comfort; we have a story to tell but we must tell it without rationalizing or minimizing creation’s pain. We have a story to tell about God, Israel and Jesus. God loves us despite the seeming evidence to the contrary. God listens to our protests despite our anger and disillusionment. God empathizes with our suffering through the incarnation despite our sense that no one has suffered like we have. God reigns over his world despite the seeming chaos. God will defeat suffering and renew his creation despite its current tragic condition. The story carries hope in its bosom and it is with hope that we grieve.

Mack could not “imagine any final outcome that would justify” all the evil in the world. This is something that Mack says before he sits on the judgment seat before Sophia, but it is a function of the judgment seat to decide what would justify evil and would not. If humans can’t imagine it, then it can’t be possible, right? And that is the crux of the problem—human imagination has become the norm rather than trusting God’s wisdom and knowledge that is beyond searching out, plotting or understanding.

Human imagination or trust in divine wisdom? Which shall we choose? The former, as a criterion, excludes the latter. The latter is patient with the former’s limitations.

But trust is the fundamental problem. At the root of distrust is the suspicion, as Papa tells Mack, “that you don’t think that I am good” (p. 126). We humans tend to trust our own imagination (or rationality) more than we trust God’s goodness. We doubt that “everything—the means, the ends, and all the processes of individual lives—is all covered by [God’s] goodness” (p. 126).

In one of the most powerful scenes in The Shack Papa acknowledges that he could “have prevented what happened to Missy.” He “could have chosen to actively interfere in her circumstance,” but he decided not to do it (p. 222). Only love enabled Mack to trust God with that decision.

We can’t imagine what could possibly justify evil? But, at one level, that is the wrong question. God’s purpose is not to justify it, but to redeem it (p. 127).

My favorite scene in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ is when Jesus, carrying the cross, falls to his knees under its weight. His mother runs to him and their eyes lock. With blood streaming down his cheeks and holding the symbol of Roman power and violence, Jesus says, “Behold, mother, I make all things new.”

This is the promise of God—a new creation, new heavens and a new earth in a new Jerusalem. There the old order will pass away and the voice of God will declare: “I am making everything new” (Revelation 21:5a).

A day is coming when there will be “no more curse” (Revelation 22:3). There will be no more darkness–the glory of God will fill the earth with light. There will be no more violence–the nations will receive healing and walk by its light. There will be no more death, mourning or tears–the Tree of Life and the Water of Life will nourish the people of God forever.

That renewal, however, is not simply future but is already present. Hope saves us even now. As the Father pours out his love into our hearts by his Spirit, includes us in the Triune fellowship at his breakfast table, and walks with us in our suffering, we can experience the joy of relationship, the peace of love and the hope of renewal.

Mack discovered it when he learned to trust. We will too.


Tim Tebow and the Gift of Success

January 9, 2012

I now tread where every human should fear to go. So, why go there? I tire of  absolutist statements concerning Tim Tebow, God, and football games. That is probably not a very good motivation, but hopefully something positive will arise–maybe even a good conversation. (Or, maybe I just want more traffic at my website? That is a sobering thought. :-) )

Does God care anything about football games?  Yes and No.

Yes….God delights in play. Play is part of God’s intent for humanity. All work and no play is workaholism. God’s creatures play–even the Leviathan, the great sea monster, plays in the ocean (Psalm 104:26). God delights in humanity’s play. Sport is part of the joy of life.

No…God, I imagine (though how could I ever really know), is not a fan, that is, God does not root for one side or another in the sense that God’s mood is affected by wins and loses. God is not a Pittsburgh fan that grieves their loss nor is he a Bronco fan that rejoices in the defeat of the Steelers.

Ultimately, it seems to me God is not interested in games but in people.  Interested in people, can not God gift some people with success on particular occasions?

This is not a gift based on some kind of prosperity gospel, that is, “Tim Tebow is a believer…therefore he will succeed.” Rather, it is a gift based on grace, and God gifts many people with success who do not have a Christian bone in their body. God gives wealth and empowers rulers.

When God gifts people with success–a gift that is cooperatively received by those so gifted–God holds them accountable.  What will they do with that success? God tests the wealthy.

What is seemingly impressive about Tim Tebow is that (1) he gives thanks for his success and recognizes it as a gift, (2) he does not blame God for his failures, and (3) he is committed to using that success for the growth of the kingdom of God.

Perhaps the gift of success that God has given Tebow–however long-lasting or short-lived it is (and it may be very short-lived, like, 1/2 a season)–is something that is possibly kingdom-affirming and kingdom-promoting. Perhaps God’s gift to Tebow will result in feeding the hungry, healing the sick and saving some children from death.

Rachel Held Evans tweeted: “So God’s busy altering the outcome of a football game when 30,000 children died from preventable disease today? Got it.”

I find that tweet significantly short-sighted. That God is too small. Why is one mutually exclusive of the other? Could it be that the gift of success is one of God’s means for healing some of these children–one means among many that God is now using or preparing. Perhaps God is even now preparing a person whose financial success will enable funding a cure for cancer, or drilling wells in Africa, or…..other kingdom work.

Paul does say “give thanks in everything”…..including our play as well as our work. God gives success, but also God gives failures (think about Job for a moment).  In both God is looking for witnesses to the reign of God in the world.

I don’t think Tebow wins because God is a Broncos fan or even that Tebow is one of God’s favorites. But perhaps Tebow’s success (and our own too) is something God enables for the sake of the kingdom of God. And there will be days when Tebow will not succeed and God will be good with that since even  Tebow’s failures (and ours as well) will be opportunities for bearing witness to the kingdom of God.

The danger for Tim Tebow (as it is in everyone’s success) is the potential for pride and the revelation that everyone has clay feet, even Tim Tebow (and certainly I do).

The kingdom of God, of course, does not depend on anyone. God will usher in his kingdom by whatever means God desires.

Can God use a football game for the sake of his kingdom?  Absolutely. To think otherwise is to remove God from the daily moments of our lives. That God is too small.

Is Tim Tebow God’s favorite and thus he will win the Super Bowl this year? There is no evidence that God’s favorites win the Super Bowl, and I don’t think Tim is any more one of God’s favorite than I am. We are both loved–as are all the dying children in the world–by God.

God loves play but God loves play because God loves people. God is not a football fan; God is a Tebow fan….and a John Mark Hicks fan…and your fan as well. God is especially fond of each of us.


Divine Simplicity: Christian Scholar’s Conference Paper

June 23, 2010

I have been taking some time to teach (two courses–one at Lipscomb and the other at Harding University Graduate School of Religion) early in June and to rest in the rest of June. Consequently, I have not been blogging with regularity over the past two months. I make no apologies for that.  :-) But I will probably return with more regularity–at least by the middle of  August.  :-) Summer beckons me to spend some time in self-care, family life, house work (especially after the flooding of my basement during Nashville’s May adventure), etc. Blogging will have to wait.

I did, however, want to post my contribution to the 2010 Christian Scholar’s  Conference the first week of June.  Tom Olbricht asked me to respond to Ron Highfield’s new book on the theology of God entitled Great is the Lord: Theology for the Praise of God.  My paper is entitled “The Simplicity of the Divine Nature: A Response to Ron Highfield’s Great is the Lord“.

Specifically, I was asked to review Highfield’s reflections on the traditional doctrine of divine simplicity, that is, that God’s being or essence does not belong to the same metaphysical categories as created reality. Simplicity denies that God has parts or is like a completed Lego set because this would imply that God participates in realities–as part of God’s essential Being–outside of the divine nature. God is not one being among others, but is the ground of being itself. God is Creator–the ground and origin of all other reality–rather than a participant in some greater or other reality.

For example, we do not say love is God or that God participates in holiness or even possesses holiness.  God does not possess attributes as if those properities have independent  reality. Rather, it is more biblical to say that God is love. God–whatever God is–is the reality of love, holiness, justice, etc. God is what God is. In other words, God is simple–one integrated, undivided essence. Simplicity, then, protects the aseity, uniqueness and independence of God.

Since I generally regard myself as a narrative theogian, I do not usually entertain such classic metaphysical discussions. At the same time, I see the point that links the narrative with the systematic theological point of simplicity. For example, simplicity reminds us that while we may use the language of different attributes or even assert that one attribute is central to God (whether it is glory, love or holiness), our fragmented picture of God is discursive rather than absolutely or essentially true. Simplicity, Highfield observes, “warns us not to take literally our affirmations about God” (p. 269). We understand that “God is love” through the self-emptying act of God in Jesus, but we do not thereby have a univocal grasp of what God’s own self-undestanding of love is. We understand only by analogy. Simplicity, thus, recognizes that God’s nature is an integrated whole rather than conflicted or fragmented. Simplicity reminds us that when we speak in fragmented terms about God (e.g., God is just and God is mercy, even to the point of placing those in opposition to each other), that fragmentation is part of our finitude rather than part of the divine essence.

God is what God is. That is the meaning of divine simplicity. I think Ron summarized and defended it well though I don’t think it entails the kind of immutability that he defends elsewhere in his book. But I will leave that for those who wish to read the paper itself.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 938 other followers

%d bloggers like this: