Scriptural analysis...

A few weeks back in the Forum I spoke of two of my close friends who are Anglican priests serving a parish in western Queensland. These friends relate how the rains have now come to their region. But contrary to the Gospel passage, the locals have found that "God does not make the rain fall on the righteous and unrighteous alike!" (cf. Matt 5:45).

The rains have been heavy, but localised. One property's dams are overflowing, while the property a kilometre down the road is still bone dry and the cattle are dying from thirst and hunger. The local members of the community are really struggling with the whole notion of divine reward and punishment or, in short, the idea of divine providence. God seems to be "playing favourites" and one is hard pressed to determine what criteria the Almighty is using to determine who will be the recipient of divine favour.

This issue of divine providence is explored in the Gospel reading (Luke 13:1-9) this Sunday. In this passage, Jesus reflects on two calamities that have befallen some of his fellow Jews: one at the hands of the Roman occupation; the other as the result of a natural disaster. In doing so he asks "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were greater sinners than all other Galileans?" Similarly, those cow-cockies in Western Queensland who have missed out on the rains are asking, "Why does God favour my neighbour over me? What have I done wrong to be punished so? Am I a greater sinner than farmer Joe next door?"

What can one say to people like this? Surely it is not enough to berate them for having a simplistic faith? I have tried to explore some of these important problems in various commentaries previously (see bibliography for links), as well as in individual posts in the forum. This week I'd like to try and bring some of these disparate reflections together.

Does God Play Dice?

The issue of divine providence is far more complex than we usually imagine. For there are times when we might readily point to situations or events that seem to have worked out so well that we must attribute the results to the "hand of God". However, there are also many times when prayers go unanswered; when the innocent suffer; and "bad things happen to good people". Must we also attribute these to the "hand of God"?

In my earlier commentary on prayer (Elmer, 2007), I related how when I asked my mother about these inequities she would always say "God gives us what we need, not what we want". But surely those cow-cockies in western Queensland need rain more than anything else? Is it possible that God wants to send them this suffering in order for their faith to grow - the old "grit in the oyster" answer? But why this cow-cocky here and not the one who got the rain down further? And, in any event, what sort of a God is that?

In this Sunday's Gospel reading the tragic news brought to Jesus referred to a series of executions and an accident. The Galileans who were executed by Pilate were most likely Zealots — either "revolutionaries" or "terrorists" depending on whether one was a Jew or a Roman. The ruthless Pilate made sure they made good on their sacrifices (Lk 13:1-2). Elsewhere, eighteen citizens of Jerusalem suffered from a building collapse (13:4).

	Galilee

At the time of Jesus, Jews believed that their fate was God's punishment for their sins; conversely, good Jews would escape such punishment. When those in the audience related news about their fellow countrymen, they assumed Jesus would agree that the fate of the Galileans matched their crimes. Through Pilate, God judged their actions swift and sure. But, Jesus compared the execution of the criminal with the tragedy of the innocent. So, Jesus preached otherwise. The bad were evil by choice; but, are the good evil by presumption? Didn't the guilty and the innocent suffer the same fate?

The conundrum is difficult to solve since it clearly demonstrates that one of the real problems with being a monotheist is that you have no one to blame when disaster strikes. It would be easier if one was a polytheist or a pantheist! One could simply blame the "evil" God or the malevolent forces of nature for one's misfortune. Last week in the forum, I suggested that many of us use Satan as a way of explaining the presence of moral evil in the world without making God complicit. But this approach does not totally satisfy. It may help us explain why some humans perpetrate evil, but it does not explain what the philosophers call "natural evil" — i.e., natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods or, as in this Sunday's Gospel, a building collapse.

Believing in a single God who "is Love" means that we can't blame God for the evils and inequities in the world; otherwise, we must assume that God plays dice with the world. So we come up with all sorts of ideas about us being punished for our sins ... or we simply reject the notion of the Judeo-Christian God altogether. We become atheists, or we resort to Wicca and Neo-Paganism — Fung Shui [or Feng Shui in some translations –Ed] is big at the moment — anything that means we can gain some "power" over the forces of nature (as a form of sympathetic magic).

Stop the World and Let Me Off!

The Eastern religions offer another explanation for the caprice evident in the workings of the world. For example, the Buddha would say that the world just "is" and suffering derives not from the nature of the world but from our attitude towards it. There is some truth to that insight. However, the Buddha was the product of Hinduism that perceived the world to be illusory and, therefore, so too the events that one interprets as pain and suffering. Enlightenment was achieved when one could find detachment from that illusion.

Christians do not believe that the world is illusory — or, at least, Christian theology holds to the reality of the world. There are, no doubt, some Christians who hold some very Hindu ideas about reality. Some would even argue that suffering and pain are inevitable, even divinely ordained. One school of thought holds that "God tolerates suffering and other things we regard as evil (including the consequences of freedom) because they provide us with opportunities to grow that we would not otherwise have, and growing is a greater good than being constantly happy" (Peregrinus, 2006).

This view is often referred to as a "Soul-making Theodicy". In recent years this explanation has been promoted by philosopher John Hick who, following Irenaeus (who contrary to Augustine argued that there was no original fall from perfection), posits an evolutionary view of God's "plan" for humankind. According to Hick, God created the evolutionary process by which life grows from bios (unconscious biological life) into zoe (self-aware human life). The created order, earth, is a factory for making souls leading to ever more moral/spiritual consciousness. This view draws heavily on the biblical notions of wilderness experience, exile and return, and the righteous/redeemed as "Gold tested by fire".

It seems a tidy answer — but is it? Does it really let God off the hook? Is this not a strange God that would allow millions to die in earthquakes, tsunamis, fire, pestilence and building collapses just to "test" our moral fortitude; to make us "better" people? Could not God have made a world that "tested" us without maiming and annihilating millions of innocent lives? Moreover, is Hick right in arguing that human society is evolving towards "more moral/spiritual consciousness"? The world is beset by far greater evils today than at any time in our history. On that basis, we would have to judge God's "plan" a failure and the "soul-making theodicy" an inadequate answer — as Peregrinus also pointed out a few months back in his commentary on the problem of evil (Peregrinus, 2006).

To pursue this issue further, the "soul-making theodicy" does not allow space for Jesus. There is no significant role for a redeemer or liberator. Put otherwise, it fails (from a Christian perspective) to adequately account for the Trinitarian (Father-Son-Spirit) view. I think we need a better answer.

Evil is the Absence of Good

One possible answer to this problem is to appeal to the notion of "Free Will". On this view we might argue that God created the world in such a way as to allow us the opportunity to exercise free will. This view was most effectively promoted by Augustine (354-430 C.E.), who saw the human capacity for "Free Will" as an expression of the imago dei. Thus, "Evil choices" (bad moral choices) are a feature of any world with free will. Evil perpetrated by those Galileans executed by Pilate was not God's choice; it is theirs. On the other hand the Jerusalemites who were victims of a freak accident of nature. Such a "natural evil" Augustine saw this as a consequence of the "Fall"; the created order became incapable of "behaving" according to God's original plan. According to Augustine, both moral and natural evils are simply the result of the absence of good. This view is the traditional Catholic perspective, which sees an imperfect world that allows possibility for evil both moral and natural.

This approach is not without problems. The free will option goes someway to answering the problems we have with the concept of divine providence, but I feel that it fails to effectively address the issue of natural evil. Does not attributing natural disasters to the effects of original sin seem odd for a God who is supposedly all-loving? Are we to imagine that tsunamis, earthquakes, disease, infant mortality, starvation and freak building accidents are some sort of punishment from God for our first parents' sin? What could we possibly learn about good moral behaviour from experiencing these tragedies? Still, I think Augustine was on to something.

An Imperfect World, but It Has Purpose

There is a way out of the problem. Taking our lead from Augustine we might say that only God is perfect, and anything that is not God is, by definition, not perfect. This, of course, assumes that we see "goodness" as an expression of "perfection". God could (or would) not have created a perfect world. Imagine what a perfect world would be like? Nothing would ever change; everything would stay exactly as God created it — i.e. the Garden of Eden. Again this assumes that we see "immutability" as an expression of "perfection". God is perfect because he is all-good and unchanging. We might want to challenge this very "Greek" concept of diety. Nevertheless, I think we are onto something here.

By design, everything in the world must be subject to indeterminacy (change and alteration, or asymmetry). Only in this way can humanity be drawn towards its ultimate telos (goal) who is God. God does not determine the world but calls it into goodness through the Word, the Word Made Flesh and the Spirit (the Holy Trinity), or what we would call GRACE.

The Judeo-Christian God is not that Greek philosophy — absolute and impersonal, but an involved and suffering God who acts in history. The Hebrew Scriptures present God as a God of mercy and compassion, constantly battling injustice and disobedience. The Christian Scriptures speak of a God incarnate, who models goodness and suffers death because he dares challenge the corruption and evil of the day (Elmer, 2006). On this view, God does not control history, but calls it to higher and better things. Hence, Jesus rejected the accepted wisdom that God punishes evil and rewards good by manipulating historical events. Instead, God makes the divine being present as a source of comfort and encouragement in the time of trial.

This view is perpetuated in the Catholic Sacramental view, which holds God as present in the world, especially in Christ and via the Spirit. Christians are called to continue the work of Christ — healing, seeking justice, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, suffering with those who suffer so as to redeem the world from evil. As Augustine said, "Evil is the absence of Good". The world is not perfect, but we can dream ... indeed, we can do far more: we can work for its betterment as sacraments of Christ's continuing presence in the world.

Bibliography and further food for the journey:
Elmer, Ian J. "Does God Answer Our Prayers?" Catholica Australia (2007).
URL: www.catholica.com.au/ianstake/026_it_170207.php
Elmer, Ian J. "Why Did God Become Human?" Catholica Australia (2006).
URL: www.catholica.com.au/ianstake/015_it_211006.php
Peregrinus, "The Problem of Evil, Part 1" Catholica Australia (2006).
URL: www.catholica.com.au/peregrinus/012_pere_060906.php
Peregrinus, "The Problem of Evil, Part 2" Catholica Australia (2006).
URL: www.catholica.com.au/peregrinus/013_pere_070906.php


Photo Credits:
Drought image: Environment Society of Australia website
URL: enviro.org.au/drought.asp
Child in Rain image: Northern Leader
URL: www.northernleader.com.au/04/apr08/images/Th-Fest-Rain-Splash-COL-5c.jpg
"Galilee" Flinders University 2007
URL: ehlt.flinders.edu.au/theology/institute/mediterranean/israel/
"Mugwort" © Elmer's Toons. Used with permission.
Globe image from NASA
URL: exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/Images/earth.gif

 

Ian Elmer is a lecturer in New Testament at ACU National (formally Australian Catholic University). He is also a member of the Centre for Early Christian Studies, and was recently admitted into ACBA (Australian Catholic Biblical Association). His research specialities are Paul and First-Century Christianity. He is the author of published articles in the Australian Ejournal of Theology and in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church (a publication of the Centre for Early Christian Studies). He has recently submitted his doctoral thesis, entitled Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis in its Broader Historical Context.

Email this article to a friend	Post your feedback in our forum

What are your thoughts on this essay?
You can contribute your thoughts in our forum.

Ian Elmer can be contacted at: Ian Elmer <ianelmer@catholica.com.au> Please Note: You need to remove the "NOSPAM" words at the beginning of the email address before sending the email"

©2007 Ian Elmer

[Ian's Take Archive]