Why Doesn't God Prevent Genuine Evil?

[Ryan Pugh]

Some have probably heard Dr. Oord's thoughts on this question before, but The Work of the People has put out this video of him explaining his "answer".

Why Doesn't God Prevent Genuine Evil in the World?



Any thoughts?

[Hans Deventer]

Any thoughts?

Yeah. In that line of thinking I've encountered two problems:

1. According to Tom, God is doing whatever He can at any given moment in time. I don't see how that accounts for the coming of Jesus, and in fact, pretty much every action of God in the Scriptures.

2. This line of thinking leaves us without anything to hope for but our response to God's constant pulling us in His direction. Effectively, it means all our hope is man alone. That, to me, seems both a rather hopeless idea, and I fail to see how it is in line with the Scriptures, who testify that our hope is in God.

But it has to be this way, because at the very moment God is doing something He hasn't done before, He's immediately confronted with the question why He hasn't acted before and the entire theodicy collapses. We're back to square one . I wish it wasn't that way.

[Kevin Rector]

Rather than "can't" it seems "won't" is a better word. If the word is "can't" then we have to pretty much throw out the notion of an eschaton where God rights the wrongs, wipes the tears and ends the tyranny of humans over humans.

[Hans Deventer]

Rather than "can't" it seems "won't" is a better word. If the word is "can't" then we have to pretty much throw out the notion of an eschaton where God rights the wrongs, wipes the tears and ends the tyranny of humans over humans.

Yes, but to Tom, the "can't" is essential.

[Kevin Rector]

Yes, but to Tom, the "can't" is essential.

Which makes me wonder then, if God "can't" then how is the cross not a farce?

Perhaps a much better question is: "why do we not realize how evil we all are apart from God?" There are no innocent people.

[Thomas Oord]

Thanks for responding, Hans. A few quick comments...

Yeah. In that line of thinking I've encountered two problems:

1. According to Tom, God is doing whatever He can at any given moment in time. I don't see how that accounts for the coming of Jesus, and in fact, pretty much every action of God in the Scriptures.

TO: I don't understand this criticism. Are you saying God wasn't doing anything before Jesus came? I doubt you'd say this, but your answer suggests it. I do say God always does the most God can do to love in each moment. To me the alternative -- God isn't doing all God can do -- suggests a lackadaisical God.

2. This line of thinking leaves us without anything to hope for but our response to God's constant pulling us in His direction. Effectively, it means all our hope is man alone.

TO: No, no, no! Our hope is fundamentally in God. But you're right that it means we must cooperate with God if salvation is to occur. But that's pretty good Wesleyan theology.

That, to me, seems both a rather hopeless idea, and I fail to see how it is in line with the Scriptures, who testify that our hope is in God.

TO: Yes, our hope is in God. I've said that over and over. But it's one think to say our hope is in God alone and our hope is in God. I don't think the dominant themes of the Bible say God is the only actor in our hope for salvation.

But it has to be this way, because at the very moment God is doing something He hasn't done before, He's immediately confronted with the question why He hasn't acted before and the entire theodicy collapses. We're back to square one . I wish it wasn't that way.

TO: Yes, if we say God is pretty lackadaisical at the moment and running half throttle right now but will someday in the future run full throttle and prevent evil, we end up something far less than a steadfastly loving God.

[Thomas Oord]

Kevin,

Thanks for the response and for alerting me to this good discussion. I'll insert a few short comments below.

First, however, Hans is right that it makes a big difference between saying God "won't" and God "can't." I adopt the latter view, and here's a blog I wrote with a few more details of why this is important:

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/b...bible_says_so/

Which makes me wonder then, if God "can't" then how is the cross not a farce?

TO: I don't understand what you're saying here? What is the relation between saying God can't prevent evil and saying the cross is a farce? (I obviously don't think the cross is a farce!)

Perhaps a much better question is: "why do we not realize how evil we all are apart from God?" There are no innocent people.

TO: I agree that no person (other than Jesus) is entirely innocent. And I think that apart from God we can do nothing righteous. But I also agree with Wesley that no one exists "apart from" God. That's at the heart of our prevenient grace doctrine. So I think we're on the same page here.

Tom

[Benjamin Burch]

"...one of the things that bothers me about Cobb's God is that she is just too damned nice." - Stanley Hauerwas.

I suspect he might say the same thing about Tom's project. I resonate with it, and I too have been very shaped by process thought, Cobb, Tom, and Clayton along the way. I struggle with how to make the Christian proclamation of God's final victory in the cross and resurrection and the Church as the primary location of this God's ongoing action in the world.

I've not given up yet. I think this is a project worth pursuing, and I greatly appreciate the work Tom has undertaken in his own theological journey and his attempt to help the Church think creatively. The challenge inherent is that it is not the task of Christian theology to be creative, but to be faithful. I know for a fact that this is always Tom's goal, and I hope that this commitment will be front and center as process-type thinkers continue to explore their theology in relation to orthodox Christianity.**

** My statement in no way implies that process-type theologies are necessarily not "Orthodox". Only that the relation with orthodoxy (that includes both orthodox and unorthodox) is fluid, dynamic, and ongoing.

Ultimately, my question is this:

Do essential kenosis and Process theology offer the ability for the Church to proclaim itself as the place of God's redemption in Christ, and the place where God's kingdom is realized in the world. Do they offer the ability for the Church to proclaim patient pacifism as the only proper ethic in a world of violence and war? Do they offer the Church the ability to proclaim that God has already won, and that the practice of the Church in the present is to enjoy the abundance of time to worship the triune God, and remain faithfully and patiently obedient in a world of death?

I haven't read Tom's newest book. But so far I'm not convinced that either Clayton or Cobb have offered the Church such a theology yet.

[David Gerber]

I am sure I have said this to Tom before and will reiterate that I dislike the word "can't". I get the idea, I think. Just don't like the word. That is my issue no one else's. It is a word that strikes a bit of angst in me regarding my understanding of God. Even if we say God can't lie...angst. Sheesh! I need a Xanax.

Here are some thoughts:
While I am not an expert on Scriptures there is something fascinating about the things that God is given credit for or takes credit for in Scripture. The first one that comes to mind is the death of the firstborns in Exodus. Exodus 12:12 "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn--both men and animals--and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD."

The questions of why God doesn't prevent evil and the many other variations of that question are all brought into consideration when I think that God recognizes God's own power and takes responsibility for the evil in the world. In other words, God seems to be saying "Yes, I have that power to stop evil and do not use it. I can shoulder the responsibility of giving people freedoms and desires that are often counter to my best, highest, and holiest desires for my creation." Don't know what to do with this, it has just been fascinating me for a couple of weeks.

What about our personal responsibility? How are we involved in the answer to evil? That should be a question it seems if we are claiming to be children of God. We are called to live a different life. That includes, I think, expanding the kingdom of God for the good of all people. That we somehow are to function differently that the rest of the world when confronted with genuine evil (as opposed to imitation evil I presume).

God calls Moses as an answer to evil.

Exodus 3:7-10 The LORD said, "I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey--the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 9 And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. 10 So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt."

God, for reasons that befuddle and perplex me, has called us to be the powers that use our wills to fulfill God's will. That we would choose to empty ourselves (dumping our 'godlike' nature from the Fall) of our desires for self-fulfillment and move in ways counter to our natural instincts of our desire for power, position, influence, gain, etc. living as servants to the One True King.

All of this to say that my question has rarely ever looked at evil in starvation, war, or disease and wondered where God is in all of it, but where are we in all of it?

Sorry if this is unclear.

I've probably set more theological landmines for myself than I care to admit, but I am going to send this out into the world for my learning and growth.

[Todd Erickson]

I think the question of "why doesn't God stop evil" has a number of serious flaws to it...i.e. the question itself is flawed, never mind our answers to it, as it assumes some very difficult things.

1. Who gets to say where God stops? If God is supposed to deal with the evil, then he gets to deal with all of the evil everywhere, right? What part of it is not evil enough? how are we defining evil? is it just the holocaust, or is it being passed over at work because of nepotism, or people buying coffee whose beans were picked by child slaves?

2. At some level, this question sees God as outside of reality, reaching out to change events or push buttons. It's a very deist question, I think, sort of a "I'm standing back, watching, and occasionally I reach in to correct something". But the bible gives us a picture of a God who is actively everywhere, very active, very interactive, working through and with humanity. We can't have prevenient grace otherwise.

3. The question puts the problem of evil in God's hands, rather than Man's. If we are empowered by God, and called to action within our relational existence with God, at what point do we get to throw up our hands and say "oops, I'm not responsible for this, God gets to fix this one". how much of the holocaust happened because of "good christians" who chose the paths of revenge and apathy instead of involvement and protest?

4. We have this whole issue with "God Can't" vs. "God Won't". But if it's "God Won't", then he always could, eventually, if the need was great enough. The bible is pretty clear...God can't. This digs into all sorts of concepts we have about God's omnipotence, which comes from a platonic, rather than Jewish, idea of God. God is very powerful. But the bible doesn't indicate that he is "all" powerful, where all is a sort of "no limits, anything goes" sort of quality. Everything that God does aims toward shalom. Omnipotence can kick shalom to the curb if it gets in the way of platonic, binary perfection.

[Ryan Scott]

No one likes the word "can't" in relation to God - but really, in context, Tom is saying that given the structure of the world God created (and it might be arguable that given a God of love, this is the only kind of world such a God could create) that this is an inherent limitation of God - that God's potential overriding of our free will (and it's horrible consequences) is less loving than the prevention of genuine evil.

I don't think this is at all outside the bounds of traditional theology, even from the earliest days of Christianity. It fits very well from an OT Hebrew perspective as well.

[David Graham]

This is a extremely difficult question, that I don't think has been satisfactorally answered by anyone? (Sorry Tom)

Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter......

God didn't create evil, yet it's here!
God in Christ overcame evil!
And God has provided salvation from the evil that people commit, and healing from the affects of the evil exercised against some people.
And yet..... evil is destructive and pervasive.

On one hand we know God loves...... everyone; the victim and the perpetrator...... even though all are sinners.
On the other hand, God is a just God.... loves justice (prefers mercy) and eventually will balance the "books". (All will be judged, but not all will be condemned)
Part of the reason for this is that God sent his Son to die for our sin and to provide for our salvation, hence God now acts in grace towards us and doesn't act against our evil as we deserve.

We who are "saved" are saved by God's grace through our faith. We are then called to live by faith and to follow the example set for us by Jesus Christ the Saviour, which means for us to love others, to always act in grace towards others and as much as possible to do no "evil" to anyone...... thus by God's grace we are generally "removed" from being part of the problem of evil's proliferation. Hence God deals with some of the evil of the world through the process of transorming lives..... yet evil remains a potent force in the world.

Yet evil, while destructive and painful inevitably sows the seeds of its own destruction, and so no particular systemic evil will endure for long; and yet, God does sometimes intervene and stops the evil perpetrators in thier tracks.... even at the peak of their power. e.g. Sennacherib's seige of Jerusalem and God's apparent deliverance

And here we have another problem (for us, perhaps not for God.) which is the question of why God intervenes sometimes for some in particular situations and not for others in similar situations.

At the same time personal piety seems to play no part in understanding God's infrequent and selected interventions, for while I regularly hear personal testimonies of God's people in our relatively stable and affluent western society being "saved" from some evil situation; I am very aware of many more of God's people who are regularly destroyed by evil in the third world.

And then we have our own personal responsibilities to bear our cross of suffering to bring God's justice to the poor and afflicted of every nation. As God's redeemed people we share in Christ's mission to bring "salvation" to the world, just as our forebears brought the gospel to us (perhaps the relatively stable and affluent societies of the west are the legacy left to us of the suffering & persecution of our forefathers in the faith, in "ridding" or "subduing" the power of systemic evil in the past?). Perhaps part of our mission is to be used of God to bring God's justice into the third world also, that they might share in even tthe good that we have received though it might mean that we should also share in their present suffering. Perhaps this might help to bring about their deliverance from the evil that presently oppresses them. (Be that starvation, or disease, or tyranny)

Yet what that might mean for us generally is not so clear, though for specific individuals it might mean a complete identification with and a sharing in full of the suffering of those in the third world.

Sigh..... I think I'll stop here, I've muddied the waters enough!

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks for responding, Hans. A few quick comments...

I don't understand this criticism. Are you saying God wasn't doing anything before Jesus came? I doubt you'd say this, but your answer suggests it. I do say God always does the most God can do to love in each moment. To me the alternative -- God isn't doing all God can do -- suggests a lackadaisical God.

No, I'm saying He was definitely doing things before Jesus came, but also definitely not all He could do. There are times God is doing something new, something He hasn't done before. And there are times He delays action, which also means that at that point, He's not doing all He could do. Out of love, obviously! Think of the flood. After the event, God concludes that this doesn't work. He could keep doing so but He won't. It's a decision, not a limitation.

No, no, no! Our hope is fundamentally in God. But you're right that it means we must cooperate with God if salvation is to occur. But that's pretty good Wesleyan theology.

Sure. But the fact that some won't believe ("However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”) won't stop Him from acting. We get to cooperate, or not. That's what love does. It won't force anything and as C.S. Lewis says, ultimately, we're left with people who say to God "Thy will be done", or to whom God says, "thy will be done". So love won't force, but neither will it allow evil to triumph till infinity.

Yes, our hope is in God. I've said that over and over. But it's one think to say our hope is in God alone and our hope is in God. I don't think the dominant themes of the Bible say God is the only actor in our hope for salvation.

Agreed. Nor does it say that He is completely dependent on our cooperation. Which I think is the logical consequence of what you are saying.
To put it mathematically, G x M = F. G=God, M=mankind, F=Future.
Now "G" is a constant, as I understand you. God is doing everything He possibly can, in line with love.
The factor M is not a constant individually. People can cooperate or work against or do nothing and also fluctuate in time through these various positions. I still remember your explanation with the chevrons. However, as a whole, historically seen, M is a constant.
I've chosen for G x M = F because God and man interact, it's not merely an addition.

Anyway, with G being a constant, something has to dramatically change in M to effect the desired and promised future. And that is where my despair comes from, for I simply don't see anything remotely to what we need after 1000+ years of OT history and almost 2000 years of NT history.

So in order to achieve F, and M as a whole being a constant, something new has to come from G. And that's exactly what we hope for:

Rev 21:4 - He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

We're no closer to that as we were on Pentecost. People still die, people still cry, people are still in pain. So I'm still hoping.

Yes, if we say God is pretty lackadaisical at the moment and running half throttle right now but will someday in the future run full throttle and prevent evil, we end up something far less than a steadfastly loving God.

If we presume that we can completely understand all He does, yes. However, by definition, we do not. We don't suppose that our dogs understand all we do, I don't see why we can think we can understand all God does.

Also, John explains why he wrote that God is love. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him."

Likely, this was written after the events of 70 AD. How can one talk about the love of God in view of this disaster? Where is the faithfulness of the covenant God? The only possible way to do so is to understand that this love is revealed in Christ, given for our sake and raised from the death as a first fruit. I don't know why He has not returned yet nor why as yet, Jesus is still the only one raised as in 1 Cor 15, but I have hope that one day, the trumpet will call. As to why that hasn't happened yet, I don't know. I can't see the Crucified God (Moltmann) as lackadaisical though. The cross means too much to me to dare to say that.

For the record, I do appreciate all you're trying to think through, Tom. I can't go along for the entire ride, but you've certainly been helpful. I still hope you can describe an eschatology from within your theology, that explains how we can have hope of a new earth where every tear will be wept away, and pain and death will be no more.

[Randy Wise]

Why doesn't mankind listen to God who instructs mankind to love one another?

R.

[Hans Deventer]

Why doesn't mankind listen to God who instructs mankind to love one another?

I don't know, but it would not help with earthquakes, tsunami's and tornado's.

[Randy Wise]

I don't know, but it would not help with earthquakes, tsunami's and tornado's.

The solution in that woould to have a new body that isn't subject to death, injury, illnesses, old age etc.

Wait! It seems there is a plan in the works to address that for those that Love God.

R.

[Ryan Scott]

I don't know, but it would not help with earthquakes, tsunami's and tornado's.

It might over time. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that much of the devastation in our world is a result of collective sin. If we really believe that humanity's sinful actions have damaged not just us, but all of creation, it's impossible to know what effects are natural processes and which effects have been influenced by our own corruption of creation.

[Hans Deventer]

It might over time. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that much of the devastation in our world is a result of collective sin. If we really believe that humanity's sinful actions have damaged not just us, but all of creation, it's impossible to know what effects are natural processes and which effects have been influenced by our own corruption of creation.

Hmm, as to climate I see at least an influence, but earthquakes? I lack the imagination needed to see the geology of our planet change.

[Bob Hunter]

Kevin,

Thanks for the response and for alerting me to this good discussion. I'll insert a few short comments below.

First, however, Hans is right that it makes a big difference between saying God "won't" and God "can't." I adopt the latter view, and here's a blog I wrote with a few more details of why this is important:

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/b...bible_says_so/

I think your blog article addresses a concern that most people have with this type of thinking. You said, "We don’t have to reject that God acts in mighty and miraculous ways. God still acts providentially and miraculously. But we might need to think of God’s acts as not involving the entire control of others."

If we say that God can't, won't, chooses not to, or self limits, then some folks will conclude (and maybe wrongly) that God is less powerful and unable to move in miraculous and providential ways. As you know, many Christians tell stories of how God provided, healed or saved at some critical point in their life. These faith experiences rely on a God who intervenes in human affairs seemingly against all odds. They rely on a God who does the impossible. In my own life I can attest to God working through some very messy situations and I have always just assumed He has done so in spite of not being entirely in control. Others may claim, and perhaps wrongly, that God was in total control and acted to bring about a predetermined outcome.

I'm just trying to filter the idea of "God can't" through the lens of Christian experience. Any help would be appreciated.

[Randy Wise]

God has made known what the future holds for those that Love Him and those who choose to be His enemies.

Until the appointed time all this is allowed to exist together (below) but each of us after the life of the body face judgment. We also have civil governments that deal with "crime" as well. Its not a state of lawlessness. At least not in the US.

Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.”

[Ryan Scott]

Hmm, as to climate I see at least an influence, but earthquakes? I lack the imagination needed to see the geology of our planet change.

Maybe I've got a pie in the sky optimism about God's intentions. I'd compare it to birth defects or other inborn abnormalities (addictions, chemical imbalances, etc). I think to believe in a world of free will is to believe in a world that is constantly corrupting itself. However, to believe in a God that is redeeming said world, is to believe in a God who intends to make some of these things right.

For example, many have said that likely hurricane Katrina would have been a much more manageable storm 1) if it had occurred 50 years ago - as hurricanes, for as yet unexplained reasons seem to be getting stronger and 2) if the marshes and lowlands guarding New Orleans from the open ocean hadn't been depleted by drill beneath them.

The second one is certainly a human aided cause, the first may be (on a long term, societal scale). I am not arguing that all earthquakes or hurricanes are the result of sin, but I do suspect that perhaps their ferocity and/or destruction may be enhanced by generations of human being not caring for creation in the way God intended.

(Not to mention the oft heard explanation for a hurricane such as Katrina that, when the marshes become eroded, these large hurricanes may be creation's way of rebuilding them. Humans rarely think about ourselves as part of creation - perhaps a part that needs to be scaled back in some areas.)

[Randy Wise]

Holy Father it is a wonderful world I live in. Thank You.

I see children playing and smile. I see the beach and state "nice". I look up to the heavens and state "wow"

I see mountains, rivers, fields adorned with flowers and state "beautiful".

I live and exist and state Holy Father "thank you"

Randy

[Rich Schmidt]

(Not to mention the oft heard explanation for a hurricane such as Katrina that, when the marshes become eroded, these large hurricanes may be creation's way of rebuilding them. Humans rarely think about ourselves as part of creation - perhaps a part that needs to be scaled back in some areas.)

If our inability to live in harmony with the rest of creation is an expression of sin (and I think it is), then our redemption from sin should include an increased ability to understand and live in harmony with the earth... which, I would think, would include things like not building houses on known fault lines and in the path of hurricanes. Or building in such a way that these things aren't harmful to human life & natural processes.

[Ryan Scott]

If our inability to live in harmony with the rest of creation is an expression of sin (and I think it is), then our redemption from sin should include an increased ability to understand and live in harmony with the earth... which, I would think, would include things like not building houses on known fault lines and in the path of hurricanes. Or building in such a way that these things aren't harmful to human life & natural processes.

True enough.

[David Gerber]

Hmm, as to climate I see at least an influence, but earthquakes? I lack the imagination needed to see the geology of our planet change.

Maybe the earthquakes when we all put our collective feet down in response to moral laxity in the church? It's just a guess. Of course, it could be that we jump to conclusions and the landing causes tectonic shifts as a result.

[David Graham]

I think your blog article addresses a concern that most people have with this type of thinking. You said, "We don’t have to reject that God acts in mighty and miraculous ways. God still acts providentially and miraculously. But we might need to think of God’s acts as not involving the entire control of others."

If we say that God can't, won't, chooses not to, or self limits, then some folks will conclude (and maybe wrongly) that God is less powerful and unable to move in miraculous and providential ways. As you know, many Christians tell stories of how God provided, healed or saved at some critical point in their life. These faith experiences rely on a God who intervenes in human affairs seemingly against all odds. They rely on a God who does the impossible. In my own life I can attest to God working through some very messy situations and I have always just assumed He has done so in spite of not being entirely in control. Others may claim, and perhaps wrongly, that God was in total control and acted to bring about a predetermined outcome.

I'm just trying to filter the idea of "God can't" through the lens of Christian experience. Any help would be appreciated.

As I mentioned earlier, I have no doubt that God does from time to time intervene..... but only "apparently" for selected people at selected times in selected places. We just can't predict when God will intervene nor for whom? Thus many very devout Christians perish.... e.g. the Earthquake in Haiti.

I have the greatest difficulty understanding this: "Why not them.... and why others (less deserving perhaps)?"

[Hans Deventer]

I have the greatest difficulty understanding this: "Why not them.... and why others (less deserving perhaps)?"

Read Lamentations. They knew why, but that didn't help one bit. They still lamented.

I think the "why" question is way overblown and generally the result of us trying to control our world and being unable to deal with what we cannot control. Or with a God we cannot totally comprehend. Hey, he's God! That should not surprise us.

I've heard that the heart of education is learning to ask the right questions. Questions that help. The "why" question is great when it comes to studying nature. It's far less great when living with God. It might be that He is wanting to teach us something, but chances are that if your 16 year old daughter is raped and killed, that is not the case. As Tom rightly observes, there is genuine evil that cannot be reasoned away.

[David Graham]

Read Lamentations. They knew why, but that didn't help one bit. They still lamented.

I think the "why" question is way overblown and generally the result of us trying to control our world and being unable to deal with what we cannot control. Or with a God we cannot totally comprehend. Hey, he's God! That should not surprise us.

I've heard that the heart of education is learning to ask the right questions. Questions that help. The "why" question is great when it comes to studying nature. It's far less great when living with God. It might be that He is wanting to teach us something, but chances are that if your 16 year old daughter is raped and killed, that is not the case. As Tom rightly observes, there is genuine evil that cannot be reasoned away.

Thanks Hans, I suspect that you're right about the "why question" being unhelpful, although for me it's not about "wanting to control", but about simply wanting to understand. Sure I admit that we live with lots of mysteries that we will probably never understand..... but I hope that perhaps over time I might understand these mysteries a little better, if for no other reason than to offer something more than the "cliche" answers to life's hard questions that are neither convincing nor comforting, even for those that offer them. Nonetheless people come to us (Ministers and Laypeople) and ask for explanations, and for a change I'd like to be able to say something more than: "I don't know..... but God knows!" And having buried a young woman who was the victim of what now appears to be "gross medical incompetence" , and whose parents grieve still for lack of answers, I wish I had some constructive answers to give that would enable them to move on with their confidence in God intact..... but as it stands their faith (what's left of it) is sorely tested.

I will take your advice though and re-read Lamentations.

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks Hans, I suspect that you're right about the "why question" being unhelpful, although for me it's not about "wanting to control", but about simply wanting to understand.

David, I don't want to pretend to know it all, but people are not going through a crisis of faith merely because they "simply want to understand". I would say it is about much more fundamental issues which, as I see it, boil down to needing a God who acts predictably and, in our view, is reliable because we understand Him. What I am trying to say is that it doesn't work that way and people's faith may actually be shipwrecked because of this "why" question. So it is of the utmost importance that we don't teach them an image of a predictable God, but rather one in which His very Son calls out in despair in His moment of utter loneliness. A God who lets James die in prison, and saves Peter from it. We really must let go of that desire to understand God, IMHO. It's a dangerous thing.

[Thomas Oord]

Hans,

Sorry for being too long in replying. I got the flu over the weekend, and I'm still recovering.

You've got so many important things in this piece, and I wish I could address them all. I think at the end of the day we'd still disagree, though.

I do want to clarify one point. I'm not saying that God requires our cooperation in order for God to act. I think God acts irrespective of our cooperation. But I do think God cannot accomplish certain outcomes without our cooperation.

As to your equation, I can see why you may despair. In a scheme like mine that relies upon God's persuasive love and creaturely cooperation, there is no guarantee of victory. That will lead some to despair, although others will not. There is genuine hope in a persuasive God of love, but there's no guarantee.

I do hope that the God of persuasive love will work tirelessly and with infinite resources to persuade all prodigals to return home. For me, the God who is could accomplish this unilaterally should use such power to prevent genuine evils in the past and present. So I hope the persuasive love of God will move "sweetly and strongly," to use Wesley's words, to secure a victory with creaturely cooperation.

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

I think your blog article addresses a concern that most people have with this type of thinking. You said, "We don’t have to reject that God acts in mighty and miraculous ways. God still acts providentially and miraculously. But we might need to think of God’s acts as not involving the entire control of others."

If we say that God can't, won't, chooses not to, or self limits, then some folks will conclude (and maybe wrongly) that God is less powerful and unable to move in miraculous and providential ways. As you know, many Christians tell stories of how God provided, healed or saved at some critical point in their life. These faith experiences rely on a God who intervenes in human affairs seemingly against all odds. They rely on a God who does the impossible. In my own life I can attest to God working through some very messy situations and I have always just assumed He has done so in spite of not being entirely in control. Others may claim, and perhaps wrongly, that God was in total control and acted to bring about a predetermined outcome.

I'm just trying to filter the idea of "God can't" through the lens of Christian experience. Any help would be appreciated.

Bob,

I'm with you; I think a good theology must account for the miraculous.

In accounting for miracles, however, much modern theology has thought God must intervene from the outside or totally control others. I don't think miracles require such divine activity. I think we can apply the same general line to miracles Jesus applies to some whom he healed: "your faith has made you whole."

In doing so, we will have to believe other creatures than humans have the ability to cooperate with God. This was not a difficult thing for people to believe prior to the dawning of the Enlightenment with its mechanistic universe (Newton and Descartes).

And in doing so, we must be careful to teach that those who have faith and want to cooperate with God may not be healed here and now, because their bodies do not cooperate with God's desire for healing. I don't want to blame victims! And I want to afford genuine agency to bodily members. We all know we can't control our bodies entirely!

In my theology, then, we can affirm God working miracles, with creatures cooperating in this loving, spectacular, and largely surprising activity.

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

Maybe I've got a pie in the sky optimism about God's intentions. I'd compare it to birth defects or other inborn abnormalities (addictions, chemical imbalances, etc). I think to believe in a world of free will is to believe in a world that is constantly corrupting itself. However, to believe in a God that is redeeming said world, is to believe in a God who intends to make some of these things right.

For example, many have said that likely hurricane Katrina would have been a much more manageable storm 1) if it had occurred 50 years ago - as hurricanes, for as yet unexplained reasons seem to be getting stronger and 2) if the marshes and lowlands guarding New Orleans from the open ocean hadn't been depleted by drill beneath them.

The second one is certainly a human aided cause, the first may be (on a long term, societal scale). I am not arguing that all earthquakes or hurricanes are the result of sin, but I do suspect that perhaps their ferocity and/or destruction may be enhanced by generations of human being not caring for creation in the way God intended.

(Not to mention the oft heard explanation for a hurricane such as Katrina that, when the marshes become eroded, these large hurricanes may be creation's way of rebuilding them. Humans rarely think about ourselves as part of creation - perhaps a part that needs to be scaled back in some areas.)

Ryan,

I think you may be on to something important. If we live in an interrelated universe, the sins of one can influence the well-being of others. So there may be a connection between human sin and so called "natural" evil.

I think an adequate theodicy, however, also suggests that even nonhuman actors and forces have agency that God cannot entirely control. In my view, God's own nature provides this agency in God's love for all creation.

I'm teaching philosophy of science this semester. In previous books, I've talked about God giving freedom and agency to creatures, and God not being able to withdraw, override, or fail to provide this freedom and agency. God cannot do so, because this gift derives from God's eternal nature of love. In this philosophy of science class, I'm starting to think I should add what we generally call "natural laws" to this gift of God to creation. In other words, God gives what we think of as "natural laws" from God's eternal nature, and therefore "breaking" these laws would require transgressing God's own nature -- something I regard as impossible for God.

Interesting stuff!

Tom

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

If our inability to live in harmony with the rest of creation is an expression of sin (and I think it is), then our redemption from sin should include an increased ability to understand and live in harmony with the earth... which, I would think, would include things like not building houses on known fault lines and in the path of hurricanes. Or building in such a way that these things aren't harmful to human life & natural processes.

Rich,

I think your suggestion is important. But I don't think it solves the problem entirely. I don't think it does, in part, because I know of no place on earth entirely safe from what we call "natural" disasters. I think we must supplement what you say with a reconception of divine power.

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

As I mentioned earlier, I have no doubt that God does from time to time intervene..... but only "apparently" for selected people at selected times in selected places. We just can't predict when God will intervene nor for whom? Thus many very devout Christians perish.... e.g. the Earthquake in Haiti.

I have the greatest difficulty understanding this: "Why not them.... and why others (less deserving perhaps)?"

Your final question points to a major problem with thinking God can intervene (when "intervene" is defined as totally control a situation). I think it makes much more sense to say God cannot entirely control others. And I think I can say this while still affirm a robust doctrine of creation, miracles, resurrection, and hope for eschaton.

Tom

[Bob Hunter]

Tom,

Can we discipline our bodies to cooperate and submit to God more completely through fasting? Sometimes I think my body bows to the devil's agenda and not God's.

[Kevin Rector]

I don't understand what you're saying here? What is the relation between saying God can't prevent evil and saying the cross is a farce? (I obviously don't think the cross is a farce!)

Also, John explains why he wrote that God is love. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him."

Likely, this was written after the events of 70 AD. How can one talk about the love of God in view of this disaster? Where is the faithfulness of the covenant God? The only possible way to do so is to understand that this love is revealed in Christ, given for our sake and raised from the death as a first fruit. I don't know why He has not returned yet nor why as yet, Jesus is still the only one raised as in 1 Cor 15, but I have hope that one day, the trumpet will call. As to why that hasn't happened yet, I don't know. I can't see the Crucified God (Moltmann) as lackadaisical though. The cross means too much to me to dare to say that.

For the record, I do appreciate all you're trying to think through, Tom. I can't go along for the entire ride, but you've certainly been helpful. I still hope you can describe an eschatology from within your theology, that explains how we can have hope of a new earth where every tear will be wept away, and pain and death will be no more.

What Hans said.

For the cross to have meaning, it must be transformational and in a movement towards eschaton. The cross stand in light of the resurrection, wherein God "breaks the rules". He overruled the desires of Jesus' murderers, when they conspired to make Jesus be dead. It was the "will" of the leaders that Jesus be a corpse in the ground - God took away their "free will" to make this a reality. God directly intervened to stop the greatest evil ever perpetrated. In the resurrection we get a glimpse of the glory of escaton and I see no room for escatalogical hope to live in harmony with a God who can't move to stop evil - because the eschaton (and therefore the cross and resurrection) is first and foremost a move by God to stop evil.

[Kevin Rector]

But we might need to think of God’s acts as not involving the entire control of others.

The quote above from your blog seems to my thinking to be taking a hair and splitting it right in two.

I will accept the notion that God can't entirely control the other - as long as we can recognize that from time to time God will make it so unpleasant to go against His will that the other will eventually succumb to the will of God (this to me however seems to be a form of control). So God "can't" force Pharaoh to release the Israelites - but God makes going against His desires so incredibly unpleasant that Pharaoh is eventually "forced" to let the people go. So if we have room for the miraculous - then we have room for a great deal of influence by God - an influence that could easily be equated with God acting against free will without ever taking away free will.

[Ryan Scott]

I think an adequate theodicy, however, also suggests that even nonhuman actors and forces have agency that God cannot entirely control. In my view, God's own nature provides this agency in God's love for all creation.

Yeah, I've been thinking about evolution and free will some lately. I posted about this on another thread (I think the Jeremiah 18 one). Again, this is a hypothesis for analysis, not a proposal or belief. But what if God gave creation free will - evidence we see in natural selection and the overall development of creation, but perhaps individual species or even individual actors within creation do not have free will apart from their participation in the whole of creation.

I began thinking this route after hearing a lengthy NPR interview with some neuro-scientists doing work with decision making and morality. They seem to think that even our free choices and the way we make decisions are almost entirely determined by past experience, genetics, etc.

That even our "free" choices are in some extent (this guy thought to a large extent) not really "free" in the traditional philosophical sense.

I've been thinking in this vein because more and more it seems like scripture speaks collectively about creation. God created. God gave humanity a specific place in creation (and the task of nurturing and managing creation), but ultimately we are within the whole. When we talk about sin and redemption (even as scripture talks about it) it's not generally in individualistic or even species-specific terms. God is at work redeeming all of creation, not just the sinful humans within it.

I don't have answers to these things, but I've been pondering the questions a lot lately. I think they're worthwhile. Our western thought has so been captured by the idea of individualism that it's difficult to step outside of that paradigm - even as it is one foreign to scripture and much of Christian tradition.

[Thomas Oord]

Tom,

Can we discipline our bodies to cooperate and submit to God more completely through fasting? Sometimes I think my body bows to the devil's agenda and not God's.

Bob,

Yes, I think we can. But such discipline (in my view) never becomes total control. Our bodies can still rebel or be influenced by other forces and spin off in directions we do not want.

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

What Hans said.

For the cross to have meaning, it must be transformational and in a movement towards eschaton. The cross stand in light of the resurrection, wherein God "breaks the rules". He overruled the desires of Jesus' murderers, when they conspired to make Jesus be dead. It was the "will" of the leaders that Jesus be a corpse in the ground - God took away their "free will" to make this a reality. God directly intervened to stop the greatest evil ever perpetrated. In the resurrection we get a glimpse of the glory of escaton and I see no room for escatalogical hope to live in harmony with a God who can't move to stop evil - because the eschaton (and therefore the cross and resurrection) is first and foremost a move by God to stop evil.

Kevin,

We may be closer on this than we think. Have you had a chance to read the final segment of my book, The Nature of Love?

Tom