Let me start by attempting to summarize the relevant parts of Lutheran Theology as I understand it now. One of the primary, if not the primary, distinctions in Lutheran theology is that of Law vs. Gospel. Law is defined functionally rather than ontologically (not sure if that's the right word). In other words, Law is defined by what it does rather than what it is. When Luther says Law, he doesn't necessarily mean the Mosaic Law or some abstract moral law, although he could, but he means anything that does Law to us. Luther talks about two functions of the Law: the pedagogical (from Paul's use of παιδαγωγός [paidagogos] in Galatians 3:24-25) and the civil. The civil use (function) of the Law refers to keeping order here on Earth in our day-to-day lives. This could mean Mosaic Law, but it could also mean the laws of our government and society. The pedagogical use is that which shows us our separation from God, that which shows us our sin. This can refer to anything, from Jesus' greatest commandments to Romans 3:23 (for all have fallen short) to a nagging conscience. One of my favorite images Luther uses is that of leaves rustling in the wind on a dark night in the woods. Anything that causes fear in you, anything that reminds you of your own mortality̶̶̶̶-- this is fulfilling the pedagogical function of the law.
Obviously we find the pedagogical use of the law to be... unpleasant, and we are willing to do anything to silence that voice. We look for solutions and schemes which will bring us closer to God and make us worthy of him. At the same time, we are terrified of God and are bound (like, with chains) to reject him. I know that, for those of us brought up in the Church, it can be hard to really understand that kind of fear of God. We, at least in the tradition I grew up in, are much more likely to talk about being buddies with God than subjects of him. Imagine for a moment what we know about God on our own apart from what has been directly revealed to us. We end up with the "God of the philosophers," as Pascal calls him in Pensées. We end up with an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God. This God is the creator/source of all there is (good and bad) and yet we want to say that he is all-loving as well. This God is so big as to be incomprehensible to us and he is the one in charge of our destinies. Luther refers to this God of natural theology as the "Hidden God." This is God in himself. This is a God that, ultimately, is hidden from us. In his book Where God Meets Man, Gerhard Forde puts it this way:
...general concepts and ideas such as almightiness, immutability and even predestination do not in the first instance reveal God to us so much as they hide him from us. They do not at first comfort or console us so much as they frighten or even repel us...But the point in saying that God is hidden is to lead us to recognize that this is exactly the way God intends it to be. He does not want to be known as he is "in heaven," in his mere "almightiness" or even merely as "the God of predestination."
Note that we are not denying that this is how God is, but we are saying that we can never really know God in this way. This God, the Hidden God, is just too big and too frightening for us to know. We are never sure if he is for us or against us. We're never quite comfortable saying what he is or isn't doing. Luther says that the Hidden God is often indistinguishable from Satan. Who's responsible for Hurricane Katrina? What about the earthquake in Haiti? 9/11? Many said that this was God punishing us while others would say that it was the act of Satan, if they gave it a supernatural cause. The fact is that we have no idea what the Hidden God is doing or not doing, nor do we know why. So how can we know God? I'll continue Forde's quote:
He wants to be known as the God in the manger or at his mother's breasts, the God who suffered and died and rose again. His almightiness, his unchangeability, the threat of predestination- all these things are "masks" which God wears, so to speak, to drive us to look elsewhere, to look away from heaven and down to earth, to the manger and the cross, to preaching and the sacraments.
God is hidden in the abstract so that he can be revealed in the concrete, in his history with humanity culminating in Jesus Christ. This God, the Revealed God, is the source of Gospel. This is the good news that we have: God is indeed for us and not against us and has worked everything out for our good.
So here's my issue: what does it mean for God to be both Hidden and Revealed? How can we say that the Revealed God is the same as the Hidden God, who is so hidden as to be easily confused with Satan? How do we know that the promises made to us by the Revealed God will be upheld by the Hidden God? I have some beginnings of ideas, but for now I'll let the questions stand.
"This God is the creator/source of all there is (good and bad) and yet we want to say that he is all-loving as well." Interesting statement. Are you stating that God is the author of evil?
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question! I think that, if we acknowledge that God is the creator of all there is, we have to recognize that he is ultimately responsible, directly or indirectly, for everything, including what we label as evil.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, though, I think this question and others like it ultimately point to the importance of recognizing that God is hidden from our philosophizing about him. When we really try to figure out this God in the abstract, we run into these things that make us uncomfortable and, quite frankly, scare us. This leads us to question God (How can I trust this God who is responsible for all this evil that I see? How do I know that he is God for me and not against me?) and ultimately drives us to look to God as he has revealed himself, rather than what we can figure out on our own.
What do you think?
First off, I think that God is for God and not "for us or against us." Joshua 5:13-15 gives us a pretty clear pitcure that it is not about God getting on our side, but rather we getting on the side of God.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I don't think God is the author of evil. To me, a statement like that comes very close to what the Pharisees cried out when they said "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons." in Matthew 12:24. To which Jesus responded that a house divided could not stand. Perhaps this is a stretch to what you are trying to get at...
Let me try a different angle. Is right to assume that on the one hand God is GOOD and on the other hand also say that God is EVIL. How can God be good and evil at the same time. Is that not out of His own chacater? Think about this, when you arrive in heaven, do you think evil will exist? God calls for purity, holiness, righteousness and goodness. Evil, or sin, is what separates us from God. God cannot have sin for if He had sin then He would not be God and our fiath in Him would be vain.
Now I know that God allows evil to exist and remain and this can be a hard concept to wrap our little heads around. A helpful book on the topic that I need to read again is called "If God is Good: Faith in the midst of suffering and evil" by Randy Alcorn. You can check out some of his videos regarding this topic here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYWayNQWiC0&feature=related - Parts 1-3 might help shed some light. I'll warn you that part 2 has poor audio quality.
If the video doesn't work out or you would like to read some parts of the book, you can find it here: http://books.google.com/books?id=H1SKaY6nIScC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=evil+is+the+absence+of+good+%22randy+alcorn%22&source=bl&ots=5gtbnTDqSs&sig=EIHlG0B7ScgE9yLzygnSdAnLcEI&hl=en&ei=SgUDTMnKNoXeNa3MxDs&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thanks for your response!
ReplyDeleteTo your first point: I think Joshua 5 is addressing something different than what I am talking about. I read that passage as indicating that God is not for one human cause over another. What I'm saying is that God is for us (humanity) in general and for you or me particularly. I don't mean that God supports our causes, but that he supports us. God has chosen to be God for his creation and not God against his creation, and this is revealed by his action in Jesus Christ.
To your second point: I don't mean to say that God is evil, for if that is the case, then we have no hope. You are right to say that God is good. That said, I think it is possible for God to do things that seem evil (or at least incomprehensible) to us, for example: Exodus 4:24, 1 Kings 22:20-23, 1 Samuel 15:1-3, Job. I still say, though, that if God created all that exists (which I believe) and evil also exists (which I also believe), then God is ultimately responsible for evil. If God had not created anything, then evil would not exist. And, if we say that God is all-knowing, then God created knowing that evil would result. I'm not trying to second-guess God, but I don't see how I can arrive at any other conclusion without denying that evil exists or that God created everything.
Regarding the videos: I'm quite possibly misinterpreting him (5 minutes isn't much time to understand someone's argument), but it seems to me that Mr. Alcorn is implying, particularly in part 2, that God is the source of evil and suffering. He doesn't say it explicitly, but it sounds as though part of his explanation is that evil and suffering helps us to appreciate the glory and grace of God. It almost sounds as though God intentionally created this world to be difficult so that we could appreciate heaven. Again, I may be misunderstanding him. In part 3 he hinted at the free will theodicy. It's too big to get into here, but I don't think I hold as optimistic a view of human free will as he does (maybe I'll make another post dedicated to that subject).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Mr. Alcorn states that God is the source of evil and suffering. In fact I think he would state, as in his book, that evil is more than the absence of good. He says "More than merely the absence of good, evil is the corruption of good."
I still don't see how God creates evil. I don't see how He is responsible for our actions either. We are responsible for the evil that is in the world. However God will, one day, take that responsibility onto Himself (started with the cross) by ending the evil and suffering we brought into the world. God will right what we made wrong. God will restore what we made evil and He will make it good. This is doesn't have to do but chooses to do it anyway out of a love for us.
Grace and forgiveness are part of God's eternal character that we would have never known if evil had not entered into the equation. The trinity does not need compassion, mercy or grace. These attribute could only be expressed in fallen individual like you and me.
God is accomplishing the redemptive owrk in our lives and will one day eliminate evil and suffering. But some of His virtues that we see clearly could never have been seen without evil and sufferings temporary hold on us.
Thanks for clearing up Mr. Alcorn for me. His definition of evil sounds very much like St. Augustine's definition of sin being disordered love.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how we can be responsible for all the evil in the world, although we may be using different definitions of evil. I can see us being responsible for moral evil, but not what is often called natural evil, or suffering not caused by human action, such as Hurricane Katrina or the earthquake in Haiti. Your definition of evil may not include natural evil, which is alright with me. However, I still maintain that God is the first link in the chain of causality for everything, evil or otherwise. God created humanity knowing that it would be corrupted. God could have created differently, but he didn't. Now I'm sure he has good reasons for this, but I think we are deluding ourselves if we think we can really explain why God did everything the way he did.
Here's a question: if the evil and suffering in this world enable us to appreciate God's grace and forgiveness, then is it really evil? In other words, if evil leads to a greater good, is it still evil? Do the ends justify the means?
Are natural events evil? The same God who makes the rainbow, made the flood that brought about its first appearance. The same God who causes the snow to fall, also allows an avalanche. I think we merely perceive (based on our expereinces and what WE think to be right and wrong)what is evil. But our preception and understanding can't judge God and call what He does evil. We have no right to do so, because we are not God.
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with you here about natural evil.
ReplyDeleteBut what about moral evil? If the ungraciousness of our neighbor (or ourselves) helps us to appreciate God's graciousness, then is that still evil? Do the good ends justify the evil means?
God has always called his people to reject evil and embrace good.
ReplyDeleteTwo types of moral evil: blatant and subtle. Blatant meaning that evil done openly and admitting its hatred of good. Subtle meaning that evil professes to love good while violating it.
Does the ungraciousness of our neighobr help us to appreciate God's graciousness? Yes it does. Is the ungraciousness still evil if it results in good? Yes it is.
Was Jesus' death on the cross evil or good? Both from our viewpoint. Loving from God's.
God makes a pretty bold statment in Romans 8:28. It says "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." If I may, let me qoute once again from Randy Alcorn: "God is all good, all powerful, and all knowing; he hates evil and will ultimately judge evildoers, and remove evil and suffering after accomplishing a greater, eternal good.
The bible confirms evil's existence and considers all of God's attributes as infinite. Joni Eareckson Tada writes, "God permits what he hates to accomplish that which he loves." Evil is never good, yet God can use any evil to accomplish good and sovereign purposes."
So, i thought that i'd give it a stab.
ReplyDeleteI've been reading about Karl Barth's theology of late and came across some interesting, maybe even compelling, ideas.
Barth thought there had been a problematic development in the approaches to evil that had been posed. Barth tends to rethink creatively the issues he has a problem with, and so he believed this issue to be one to rethink. I think, though i'm not sure, that he may, or maybe not, cringe at both of your concepts of evil for many reasons, which i don't want to go into right now. But, he at least thought that the reformation's concept of God's omnipotent attribute was flawed for the major reason that they are logical deductions about God's 'goodness' and 'power'. He believed that this was missing the fact that Christ is God's 'self-revelation'. If you see Jesus, you see the Father.
So, Barth decided to look first at what was real and then moved to what was possible. He saw that Christ conquered death. Something that had the power to make life end. Barth describes evil as 'das Nichtige' -- or a mysterious power of 'nothingness'. Not that evil was nothing, but that evil is that which has the power to reduce something to nothing. Death, i believe he would say, is something that has this power -- to make life meaningless. Thus, Christ came to create meaning in it, by conquering sin and death in His resurrection. I know that Barth was a man of his time and am sure that he would maybe see similar ties to Nazi Germany. One example: the destruction to the people within the internment camps.
I'm not sure, but it's a thought... and maybe a good one.
Thanks for your response, Tyson!
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I'm not sure how I feel about all the omni's for exactly the reasons you've given in your post. However, I'm skeptical of Barth's move for a couple reasons.
First, as far as I know, the majority of the Christian church for most of the history (maybe all the history) of the Christian church has affirmed God's omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc. As hesitant as I am to uphold doctrines derived from logic apart from revelation, I am even more hesitant to go against what the vast majority of the church has said for the vast majority of the time. I may be wrong here, though, so let me know if I am.
My second reason is this; according to Luther, we are terrified of letting God be God. This hidden God is just too frightening, so we are always "trying to get God off our backs" as Forde says and tame him somehow. What Barth does by denying the hidden God seems like another attempt to do just that. Now, I know this doesn't prove anything, but it's enough to give me pause.
John,
ReplyDeleteI hear what you are saying. But i'm not too sure that Barth would outwardly disagree with all the omni's. But first lets look at this. What he does with his 'das Nichtige' is sketch out what he believes to be actual evil. He doesn't let evil be 'not so bad', but he decides to define it in its horror. And what an image, something that has the power to reduce to nothing. That seems pretty evil to me. He doesn't want to skirt around the issue that evil is actually something that humanity needs saving from. Next, Barth takes a step in the direction of looking first at what is reality (what has been revealed to have happen) and then using reality reflect on what could be possible within that. Rather than the other way where one thinks up what could happen and then deduce that everything in that imaginative possibility must be also what is in reality. Barth works from reality to possibility, not possibility to reality. And so, this is why at first he would deny the omni's-because they work from possibility and then lead to reality. Barth says to look at what God has revealed first. I'm not sure he would he deny the omni's all together, but the method in which they are decided upon.
Here, i find that Barth might still have the door cracked on the hidden God of Luther. Especially with the idea that God's wrath was poured out on sin and death. Barth has this wonderful idea of the 'mutual indwelling' of Christ and the believer. Where Christ is in the believer and the believer in Him. Biblical, to say the least. As the believer is in Christ so he participates in Him, and so the believer with Christ participates at the cross where sin and death has the wrath of God poured out on it. It isn't merely that man has been set aside so that someone else can take it for them , but it is made possible that man can be truly dealt with in the manner in which their sin demands so also that is redeeming to the man. The believer dies with Christ and is risen too. It isn't that 'God is off our back', but God has dealt with us in such a way that we are not completely destroyed-just killed... and then risen from the dead:)
But, i could be totally mistaken about Barth... which wouldn't be a first for readers of him. So maybe these are just my projections of what i think he would say. So take it for what it is, i'm no Barth scholar.
ReplyDeleteCOMMENT EXPLOSION
ReplyDeleteBoom!
ReplyDelete