One of the things I’ve noticed in my years as a minister is that the questions people ask me tend to cycle through some of the same key topics. I go through seasons where everyone seems to be asking me about predestination. Other seasons are filled with discussions about sexuality; some seasons seem focused on finances, and still others, like the one I’m currently in the middle of, find me repeatedly talking about the theodicy.

The theodicy, in short, is the question of how we reconcile the beliefs that (1) God is good, and (2) evil exists. In other words, how do I respond to the accusation that a good God would not allow bad things to happen (at least to good people). If God truly loved us (and were truly sovereign) why not eliminate murder, rape, natural disasters, etc.

I don’t presume to have the answer – after all, theologians have struggled (unsuccessfully) to provide an adequate answer to the problem for thousands of years, but in light of the disturbing frequency of large-scale disasters, let me offer my perspective, as flawed as it may be.

Bad things happen because of sin – your sin, my sin, the sin of our parents, the sin of their parents, and the sin of hundreds of generations of humans compounded over the course of thousands of years.

The sad reality of existence on our planet is that all of this sin has wrecked havoc on the world and, because of it, the original balance and harmony of the natural order (world, humanity, God, etc.) has been corrupted to the point of breakage.

Let me be clear: this is not an accusation that bad things happen to individuals (or communities) because of their individual (or communal) sin (even though, there is no question that some individual behaviors do have painful and problematic side-effects). In other words, New Orleans didn’t flood because it was a sinful city. Japan didn’t experience earthquakes and tsunamis because it was a sinful country. These disasters (and so many more) are the result of the overarching scourge of sin in the world and the corruption it has unleashed on the world order irrespective of the individuals involved.

The same can be said for the bodily corruption experienced by so many. Disease and sickness are, equally as much, a result of sin – although, like “natural disasters,” it is not merely the sin of the suffering individual, it is the reality that sin has corrupted the goodness of the human creature even down to the genetic level.

Could a good God stop it? Of course! If, indeed, that God were sovereign (which I believe the Christian God is). Then why not do it? I don’t know. People who know me well know that I believe in a three-fold understanding of knowledge: There are (1) the things we know, (2) the things we don’t know, and (3) the things we can logically infer from the things we know and the things we don’t know. The theodicy fits solidly in the #2 category, but because the #1 category contains Romans 8:28, I’d suggest that #3 category allows us to say this: God does not eliminate evil because God apparently has a higher purpose that self-requires allowing it.

I don’t know what that purpose is (duh! I am not God!), yet I imagine it has something to do with human choice and God’s consistent practice of allowing it (even when it causes pain and suffering to those around us). Put bluntly, while God is sovereign (and thus could illuminate sin and its repercussions) God apparently has a self-imposed rule to not treat us like pawns on a chess board. Thus God allows us to sin. Thus sin, over the centuries and millennia has affected the world at every possible level. Thus we experience pain, disease, and disaster (as a result of that sin).

I hope that helps….

Grace and Peace,
`tim

I use the word “heresy” here intentionally. There are several well-accepted by beliefs in the contemporary Christian Church that, despite their beloved status to many (and the fact that they are often and vehemently repeated), are nothing short of heresy. Chief among these heresies is the belief that Christianity is about some sort of transactional moment of personally accepting Christ. That’s a topic for another day. Today, I’d like to tackle a far more insidious belief: That the Christian faith is about learning to accept and love who and what we are.

In short: Nope.

I imagine a number of my friends will have a deeply negative reaction to that statement. It has, after all, become common place in many parts of the church to imagine that part of the Christian existence is to learn how to accept one’s self for who and what they (we) are. The problem with that is simple: we are fallen; we are something we were not intended to be. We are sinners – albeit sinners in the hands of a gracious God.

I’ll be fair, as a Reformed pastor, part of my understanding here is formed by the belief in “total depravity.” It isn’t, however, my Reformed credentials that leads me to call this a heresy. It is something more basic – if Christianity is about affirming one’s self as currently experienced there is no point in it at all. Why bother?!

A few weeks ago I said these words in a sermon:

You see, even though we don’t always like to hear this, the Bible doesn’t portray the human existence as something to embrace as it is, the Bible portrays the human existence as something in need of redemption. In other words, [our] natural state… is fundamentally in need of a change – it isn’t, anymore, what it was meant to be.

In other words, to become what humanity was intended to become, we need to be redeemed — we need God to re-create us… to re-make us.

This does not, of course, suggest that we should force one another to fit into a particular cookie-cutter understanding of “Christian” or even “human;” nor does it suggest that we have the right (or that it is “right”) to demand others fit into our tidy little definitions of what “ought to be.” However, it does suggest that, when we seek affirmation or offer it, the Christian response is not simply to affirm what is but rather to joyfully and eagerly seek what is meant to be.

Thoughts?

Grace and peace,
`tim