I.
Christianity is the only belief-system that has any answers to the problem of evil. Hence, we blow a great opportunity when we fumble the question.
i) Islam denies original sin. Hence, it has no explanation for the universality of sin.
ii) Hinduism refers evil to reincarnation. This explanation has its own internal difficulties. It begs the question of how the cycle got started in the first place. And if we don’t remember our past lives, then how can we learn from our mistakes and do better the next time around.
Hinduism and Buddhism also tend to treat the sensible world as illusory or delusive. But this only pushes the question back a step, for you must then account for the illusion.
iii) Buddhism counsels radical detachment in the face of evil and suffering. This treats the symptom by dehumanizing the subject. We became numb in the face of evil.
iv) Secularism blames moral evil on our predatory ancestry. But predators don’t regularly kill members of their own species. And if this analysis were correct, then evil would be insoluble since it is programmed into our genes.
There is also the Marxist diagnosis, which, even if otherwise accurate, only pushes the problem back a step by failing to explain why the haves oppress the have-nots in the first place.
II.
i) Traditionally, theodicy distinguishes between moral and natural evil. The freewill defense, even if otherwise valid, is logically accessory to moral evil rather than natural evil.
ii) One attempt to extend the freewill defense to natural evil is to attribute natural evil to consequences of the fall. This makes sense with respect to disease and certain forms of death (by aging, illness, and crime).
iii) It makes less sense with respect to natural disasters. In general, hurricanes, tornadoes, tidal waves, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, and wildfires are not intrinsically evil. They are either side-effects of something else, or function as a natural safety-value for releasing and equalizing the build-up internal pressures or thermal invariances in the natural world.
It some cases it’s just a difference of degree—water is good, too much water, or too little, is bad.
Is fire good or bad? It all depends.
What makes a natural disaster an evil is not its intrinsic character, but its relation to human life and livelihood.
iv) Attributing a natural disaster to the sin of Adam or the agency of Satan is a rather ad hoc explanation.
a) A robust doctrine of original sin is incompatible with the freewill defense. Those who affirm freewill deny that original sin is that debilitating.
b) Scripture does not attribute natural disaster to the devil. That would turn the devil into some sort of storm-god of the kind worshipped by idolaters.
Moreover, it only pushes the problem back a step. If the devil lies behind a natural disaster, who lies behind the devil? Is God not in control of the devil?
c) Another possible move is to attribute natural disaster to divine judgment. This strategy has the merit of some Scriptural precedent. However, collective guilt is ill-suited to the freewill defense.
v) I have no reason to assume that a natural disaster could not occur in an unfallen world. What would not occur are human fatalities as a result of natural disaster.
God would warn us, or shield us. Or perhaps we’d be so technologically advanced that we could regulate nature and divert a hurricane away from a population center.
III.
For some reason, there are ministers who feel that any dumb answer will do so long as it is long on warm-fuzzies.
But this simply won’t do. The laity are not a bunch of five-year-olds. Many laymen have advanced degrees in intellectually demanding fields of study. This habit of talking down to the laity is a sorry excuse for pastoral ministry.
For that matter, unbelievers aren’t stupid either. And when they hear stupid answers, they feel justified in the contempt for the faith.
IV.
It’s revealing that when an Osteen or Warren or Campolo publicly misrepresents the Christian faith, you have folks who rush to their defense and put words in their mouth.
Now, one could make allowance for flubbing the answer if they were out of character. But when someone has a track-record of sloppy theology, why give him the benefit of the doubt?
And, more to the point, why is the priority to defend human falsehood rather than divine truth?
1.You seem to be assuming a very old-fashioned, creationist exegesis of Gen 1-2 a la Morris/Whitcomb and/or Patton, a la the vapor canopy, or a Velikovskian collision between planet earth and a comet or some such.
ReplyDeleteThe exegetical foundation for these inferences is exceedingly shaky, and the science is even worse. The younger generation of creationists retired these ad hoc arguments a long time ago. Cf. Kurt Wise: Faith, Form, & Time (Broadman 2002).
2.In particular, you appear to be universalizing from Gen 2. A more likely interpretation would favor a local narrative viewpoint Gen 2. It has to do with conditions obtaining inside the garden, not outside of the garden.
3.Gen 1:14 presupposes the existence of agricultural seasons, does it not?
Sure, you can take it otherwise if you have to, but why?
4.As I read Gen 2 (cf. vv10-14), it is describing the upper Tigris-Euphrates river valley. That’s how the vegetation irrigated.
5.To my way of thinking, what made the banishment from Eden a punishment is that conditions outside the garden were naturally harsher than within. They were leaving a hospitable for an inhospitable environment. Otherwise, why debar reentry into the garden (3:24)?
6.Unless you believe that the earth was not tilting on its axis before the fall, then why assume the absence of polar ice caps?
7.I’ve discussed God’s relation to evil in the following essay:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/04/is-god-author-of-sin-1.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/04/is-god-author-of-sin-2.html
8.To distinguish between moral and natural evil is simply to distinguish between personal agents and impersonal agencies. A hurricane is not a person.
9.To distinguish between primary and secondary causes is to distinguish between the Creator and the creature. Man is not God.
10.We should give whatever answers the Bible gives. And if we’re not prepared to talk about touchy issues, then we shouldn’t go on national TV where we’re going to be quizzed on touchy issues.
"What makes a natural disaster an evil is not its intrinsic character, but its relation to human life and livelihood."
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with this, as I think it misses the point. The real question is: are natural disasters the result of the Fall? If yes, then they are just part of the curse; consequences of our sin. I would argue that they are just that.
"iv) Attributing a natural disaster to the sin of Adam or the agency of Satan is a rather ad hoc explanation."
Really. Come now, all explanations are ad hoc if you want to go that route. I also note that whilke you continue to deal with Satan, you don't deal with the question of Adam's sin. it gets back to the distinction between God's permissive will and directive will.
"v) I have no reason to assume that a natural disaster could not occur in an unfallen world. What would not occur are human fatalities as a result of natural disaster."
Neither have you reason to assume otherwise. But I should think that the fact that the perfection of Eden is supposed to be what is restored in the New Creation is a good reason to assume that natural disasters would not occur. Unless you want to argue that tne New Earth will see earthquakes and floods etc.
"But this simply won’t do. The laity are not a bunch of five-year-olds. Many laymen have advanced degrees in intellectually demanding fields of study. This habit of talking down to the laity is a sorry excuse for pastoral ministry."
Spoken like someone not involved in pastoral ministry, or at least ought not be involved in it. The fact is that Warren and others are currrently speaking into a time of crisis withthe goal fo offering comfort. There is an appropriate time for the more advanced issues. In the midst of crisis is not that time. It is not about talking down to people or assuming stupidity or lack of education. Its just sensitivity.
1.I’m not suggesting that you abandon your young-earth creationism. However, it wouldn’t hurt to improve on the exegesis of Morris and Whitcomb as well as bone up on more sophisticated models of creationism offered by the up-and-coming generation, such as the book by Wise.
ReplyDelete2.Evidence that the arctic was at one time more temperate is generally attributed to polar wandering and the precession of the equinoxes. In fact, that idea has been around for a quite a while. Cf. Charles Hapgood, Path of the Pole.
BTW, nothing I’ve said is incompatible with young-earth creationism.
3.The New Jerusalem doesn’t need FEMA, it has God!
4.When the curse includes a diet of thorns and thistles (Gen 3:17-19), and when this is set in contrast to life in the garden, that supports my interpretation.
5.The doctrine of second-causes is mainstream Calvinism. You find it in the Westminster Confession and London Baptist Confession.
A pool player hits the cue-ball, which hits the 8-ball. The pool player is the primary cause, the cue-ball is the secondary cause.
The basic primary/secondary causality scheme can either be framed in determinist or indeterminist ways. The distinction itself doesn’t prejudge the issue.
As to the Oddball pastor:
ReplyDeletei) You are not arguing that natural disasters are the result of the Fall. You are merely asserting that to be the case.
ii) I have dealt with the question of Adam’s sin. It’s irrelevant unless you can attribute a particular disaster to divine judgment. Warren never made that connection, and, as I said before, collective guilt is incompatible with his commitment to freewill.
iii) Actually, I have offered some specific exegetical points in defense of my position: you have not.
Questions about the new earth are necessarily speculative to a high degree, but as far as speculation goes, yes, I see no reason why many natural mechanisms would not carry over into the new regime.
iv) The way you define pastoral empathy is for a pastor in a time of crisis to mouth a lot of unscriptural, sugarcoated tripe.
I define crisis counseling as offering people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear—offering them the truth of God and promises of his word; not shoveling out a spade full of heretical bathos.
If you don’t have a preachable theology, then your theology stinks. If you don’t know how to popularize the truths of Scripture, then you don’t belong in the pulpit.
I have news for you, when people ask questions, they’re asking for answers.
People like you and Warren are the reason the Evangelical church is in such crummy state today.
As to the triablgger:
ReplyDelete1) I am asserting that Katrina is quite possibly nothing more than a resultof the Fall. That's a live option that is credible for a Calvanist to hold.
2) You have not dealt with Adam's sin. It is not necessary to attribute it to a particular act of judgment. I am not defending what you characterise as Warren's view on this point.
3) There are good reasons doctrinally to reject the notion that natrural disasters will continue in the New Earth, such as the essential goodness of creation. Granted that arguments from silence on their own are not pewrsuasive, in tandem with the notion of goodness, which is not an issue of silence, the scales seemed tipped towards seeing such natural disasters as being a result of the Fall which would be eliminated inteh New Earth. You'll have to come up with some exegetically based reason for the oppsite. That is not to say that your logic is flawed. But it seems to me thatwhile both possible premises are speculative, what eveidence we do have favours my position rather than yours.
4) Your notion of what I consider empathy is of course a serious misrepresentation. That God is a God of comfort is neitehr sugar coating or tripe. That Katrina is not God's will in the directive sense is speculative, but it is nt unscriptural.
Your idea of crisis counselling is a good reason why you should do none of it. Telling poeple your "correct answer" (that God has some reason we don't know." may be true, but it is also irrelevant in a time of crisis. What people ned to hear is that God is there to provide comfort, and he is, despite appearances, in control of things. As I said, it is speculative of Warren to declare that Katrina is not God's directive will, and I consider such declarations imprudent if not impious. We just don't know. We don't need to rush to God's defense, either by clearing Him of responsibility or by attributing it to Him while justifying His alleged actions.
You don't know me, or my theology. You can't judge it or me. For the record I am calvanistic in my theology. If you want a name whose beliefs most closely resemble mine on the matters of Calvanism, try Eric Svendsen. That isn't to say that Eric agrees with me on Warren. Frankly, we have not discussed Warren.
I have news for you: When people ask you questions they want questons to their questions, not the ones you think need answering. Like it or not, when people ask why did this happen they are not really asking for a theological treatise.
"People like you and Warren are the reason the Evangelical church is in such crummy state today."
That's a serious charge. Slanderous in fact. You are speaking rashly and out of ignorance of me and my beliefs, so you are to be forgiven.
The Evangelical church is not all it could be, but that is not Warren's fault. The problems predate him. And me. It is not even clear that the problems are what you think they are, or that Wareren (or I) contribute to them.
Scapegoating is easy, but it is seldom wise. Its unfortuante that you should choose to get so personal with so little reason.
A word of encouragement: You do a lot of good work here, and you have my respect. I don't agree with you on everything. (I can disagree and still repsect you and be respectful.) However your words are generally well thought out and the points you raise are worth considering. Just don't cheapen what you do with such personal comments when they are not called for.
Hi Ephraim,
ReplyDeleteThe interpretation of Zech 14 is not transparent. On the one hand, this is a book full of obscure visionary symbolism. In addition, how we interpret Zech 14 is not unrelated to our overall eschatology.
On the other hand, the distinction between real and surreal, ordinary and extraordinary, blurs in the face of a wonder-working God, a la the Exodus.
So, I'd just fasten my seatbelt and take a wait-and-see attitude.
Matthew 24:7,8 - "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. But R875 all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs."
ReplyDeleteCan we explain more than what God's Word has said?
"Photius,"
ReplyDeleteThe old hermetic notion of man as microcosm is an interesting idea in the history of ideas, but I wouldn't use it as a hermeneutical grid for adjudicating theological claims.