Tsunami and Theodicy
A good article in First Things by David B. Hart on theodicy (A Christian defense of a good God in the face of the existence of evil) is here. He writes:
I do not believe we Christians are obliged—or even allowed—to look upon the devastation visited upon the coasts of the Indian Ocean and to console ourselves with vacuous cant about the mysterious course taken by God’s goodness in this world, or to assure others that some ultimate meaning or purpose resides in so much misery. Ours is, after all, a religion of salvation; our faith is in a God who has come to rescue His creation from the absurdity of sin and the emptiness of death, and so we are permitted to hate these things with a perfect hatred. For while Christ takes the suffering of his creatures up into his own, it is not because he or they had need of suffering, but because he would not abandon his creatures to the grave. And while we know that the victory over evil and death has been won, we know also that it is a victory yet to come, and that creation therefore, as Paul says, groans in expectation of the glory that will one day be revealed. Until then, the world remains a place of struggle between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, life and death; and, in such a world, our portion is charity.
And to digress a moment, a previous article by Hart gets to the heart of many of the issues I find myself confronted with, though Tom has raised concerns about the article. To be discussed later.
In discussing the format for this blog, that is the issues Tom and I think most pressing, we had the following exchange:
[erico] I think a big theme for me, that’s always been in the back of my thoughts, is the scandal of evil in a good world created by a good God. I think that many of the political issues of the day have this anger and pain behind it. To declare the existence of a good God is a scandal in itself to all of us who don’t know the peace of Christ, to all those without faith. And it provokes a reaction.
[tombot] YES - WE MUST DISCUSS THE PROBLEM OF THEODICY - GOOD GOD + EVIL IN WORLD + INNOCENCE/GUILT. THIS (FOR ME) IS THE ISSUE.
WE AGREE PROFOUNDLY- THE ANGER IS PRIMORDIAL ALONG WITH THE WOUND - THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION FOR FAITH THEN WOULD BE AS AN ATTITUDE THAT ALLOWED THE UNIVERSE TO BECOME SOMETHING MORE THAN A MERE ECHO CHAMBER OF THE WOUND.
AS YOU IMPLY - THE FAITHFUL ARE THE DEFENSE LAWYERS FOR A GOD ON TRIAL - THAT WOULD CERTAINLY APPEAR TO BE THE CASE IN TODAY'S WORLD.
IN MY CURRENT MUSINGS I IMAGINE FAITH AS THE CODE-BREAKER OR DE-SCRAMBLER FOR THE TRANSMISSIONS THAT OUR LIFE EXPERIENCE SENDS OUT TO US. MY LAMENT IS THAT SO MANY OF THE FAITHFUL JUMP OVER THE SIGNALS THEMSELVES IN FAVOR OF THE "ANSWERS" TO THE CODE - WHICH THEY THEN DECLARE AS SELF-EVIDENT AND SELF-EXPLANATORY THINKING THAT THESE CAN BE GIVEN, SHARED, PROCLAIMED IN A VACUUM. WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE UNSURPASSED IN THEIR SCANDALOUS PERPLEXITY.
THE BREAKING OF THE CODE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE "BINARY OPPOSITIONS" AND CONTRADICTIONS THAT MAKE UP OUR WORLD. THE TEMPTATION IS ALWAYS TO CHOOSE ONE SIDE OF THE EQUATION AS "GOOD" AND TO SCAPEGOAT THE OTHER (GIRARD). -- FOR EXAMPLE - POLITICAL LOYALTY VS. PHILOSOPHICAL TRUTH - PRIVATE FREEDOM/PUBLIC ORDER, FAMILY RELATIONS VS CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY - SEXUAL DESIRE VS. DETACHED CONCERN, JEWS/GENTILES -- CHURCH/WORLD-- CHRISTIANITY AT ITS BEST OFFERS THE "BOTH-AND" SOLUTION - A REALM OF CHARITY IN WHICH VARIOUS TENSIONS, FACTIONS, INCLINATIONS MAY ASSUME THEIR OPTIMUM PROPORTIONS.
I HAVE MORE TO SAY ON THIS THEME - GOTTA GO. TOM
I do not believe we Christians are obliged—or even allowed—to look upon the devastation visited upon the coasts of the Indian Ocean and to console ourselves with vacuous cant about the mysterious course taken by God’s goodness in this world, or to assure others that some ultimate meaning or purpose resides in so much misery. Ours is, after all, a religion of salvation; our faith is in a God who has come to rescue His creation from the absurdity of sin and the emptiness of death, and so we are permitted to hate these things with a perfect hatred. For while Christ takes the suffering of his creatures up into his own, it is not because he or they had need of suffering, but because he would not abandon his creatures to the grave. And while we know that the victory over evil and death has been won, we know also that it is a victory yet to come, and that creation therefore, as Paul says, groans in expectation of the glory that will one day be revealed. Until then, the world remains a place of struggle between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, life and death; and, in such a world, our portion is charity.
And to digress a moment, a previous article by Hart gets to the heart of many of the issues I find myself confronted with, though Tom has raised concerns about the article. To be discussed later.
In discussing the format for this blog, that is the issues Tom and I think most pressing, we had the following exchange:
[erico] I think a big theme for me, that’s always been in the back of my thoughts, is the scandal of evil in a good world created by a good God. I think that many of the political issues of the day have this anger and pain behind it. To declare the existence of a good God is a scandal in itself to all of us who don’t know the peace of Christ, to all those without faith. And it provokes a reaction.
[tombot] YES - WE MUST DISCUSS THE PROBLEM OF THEODICY - GOOD GOD + EVIL IN WORLD + INNOCENCE/GUILT. THIS (FOR ME) IS THE ISSUE.
WE AGREE PROFOUNDLY- THE ANGER IS PRIMORDIAL ALONG WITH THE WOUND - THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION FOR FAITH THEN WOULD BE AS AN ATTITUDE THAT ALLOWED THE UNIVERSE TO BECOME SOMETHING MORE THAN A MERE ECHO CHAMBER OF THE WOUND.
AS YOU IMPLY - THE FAITHFUL ARE THE DEFENSE LAWYERS FOR A GOD ON TRIAL - THAT WOULD CERTAINLY APPEAR TO BE THE CASE IN TODAY'S WORLD.
IN MY CURRENT MUSINGS I IMAGINE FAITH AS THE CODE-BREAKER OR DE-SCRAMBLER FOR THE TRANSMISSIONS THAT OUR LIFE EXPERIENCE SENDS OUT TO US. MY LAMENT IS THAT SO MANY OF THE FAITHFUL JUMP OVER THE SIGNALS THEMSELVES IN FAVOR OF THE "ANSWERS" TO THE CODE - WHICH THEY THEN DECLARE AS SELF-EVIDENT AND SELF-EXPLANATORY THINKING THAT THESE CAN BE GIVEN, SHARED, PROCLAIMED IN A VACUUM. WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE UNSURPASSED IN THEIR SCANDALOUS PERPLEXITY.
THE BREAKING OF THE CODE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE "BINARY OPPOSITIONS" AND CONTRADICTIONS THAT MAKE UP OUR WORLD. THE TEMPTATION IS ALWAYS TO CHOOSE ONE SIDE OF THE EQUATION AS "GOOD" AND TO SCAPEGOAT THE OTHER (GIRARD). -- FOR EXAMPLE - POLITICAL LOYALTY VS. PHILOSOPHICAL TRUTH - PRIVATE FREEDOM/PUBLIC ORDER, FAMILY RELATIONS VS CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY - SEXUAL DESIRE VS. DETACHED CONCERN, JEWS/GENTILES -- CHURCH/WORLD-- CHRISTIANITY AT ITS BEST OFFERS THE "BOTH-AND" SOLUTION - A REALM OF CHARITY IN WHICH VARIOUS TENSIONS, FACTIONS, INCLINATIONS MAY ASSUME THEIR OPTIMUM PROPORTIONS.
I HAVE MORE TO SAY ON THIS THEME - GOTTA GO. TOM
posted by erico at 3:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home