God and Suffering: Is He Responsible? Part 3
As mentioned in my previous posts (part one and part two), the debates between determinism and indeterminism often circle around two primary issues. The first relates to the logical coherency of each position. That was the subject of my second post. But my real intent in writing on this subject relates to the second primary issue—the question of theodicy. How are we to reconcile the goodness and greatness of God with moral and natural evil? Which paradigm—determinism or indeterminism—better helps us (and those we pastor) navigate the tension between these two seemingly contradictory realities?
When faced with suffering, there is something inherent within the human psyche that causes us to look searchingly toward heaven. We know intuitively that our particular point of pain has not visited us independent of God’s divine rule. I recall watching a news clip in the aftermath of 9/11. Amidst the backdrop of the smoking buildings, a woman with tear-stained faced and choking voice asks, “Why God, why?” It’s a valid question, and one that’s not easily answered. And it illustrates well the reality that we all intuitively look to God as the ultimate source of all things—even suffering.
And it is at this particular point that I find indeterminism wanting. As a theodicy, indeterminism generally attempts to lessen the tension between God’s goodness and human suffering by appealing to moral freedom. It is through the wrong choices of free moral agents, we are told, that suffering has been introduced into the world. Well and good—even determinists would agree so far. But then indeterminists often (not always) make a logic-leap and conclude that when faced with suffering, we should look not to God, but rather man, Satan, and the random effects of a fallen world as the ultimate source. The subtle and (often not so-subtle) implication of indeterminism is that God has no causal relation to our suffering. Now I affirm human freedom. And I affirm that much of the suffering we experience is the direct result of creation’s choice to live independently of God. But one cannot simply sprinkle the pixie dust “free will” over all suffering and magically resolve the tension between God’s goodness and human suffering.
At the end of the day, there’s no way around it. God, by very nature of his being, is the ultimate “buck stops here” person in the universe. Nothing can happen apart from his divine sovereignty. He could have prevented the planes from crashing into the towers. But he chose not to. From massive natural disasters, to the death of the smallest creatures, God’s eye beholds all; his hand oversees all. And nothing happens apart from his divine counsel. Not even open theism, with it denial of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, gets God off the hook. Even the open theist has to admit that God knew the intentions of the terrorists—if not from the dawn of time—then at least on the morning of 9/11. And still he chose not to intervene. The fact remains that creaturely freedom, however immediately the cause of suffering, does not operate outside the exhaustive scope of God’s sovereignty. The story of Job is a classic example.
As you will recall, God had placed a hedge of protection around Job. Satan asks for the hedge to be lifted and God agrees. Disaster after disaster befalls Job. Who is to blame for all of this? Well clearly the Sabean and Chaldean marauders bear their own responsibility. And clearly they were incited by Satan. But just as clearly, none of this calamity would have befallen Job apart from God’s ordained will. Certainly God wasn’t surprised at what happened to Job. He knew full well Satan’s intentions. And lying in the ashes of his estate Job correctly acknowledges that God is the ultimate source of both his blessing and his bane. “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away.” In fact, all the principle characters in the story acknowledge God as the ultimate source of Job’s suffering—his wife, his friends, the narrator, and most importantly, God himself. The driving question of the book is woven throughout the entire narrative, “Why would God bring such calamity upon a righteous man?” The indeterminist answer, with its strong appeal to moral freedom, would have us believe that God really wasn’t to blame. After all, it was the free moral choices of humans and demons that brought about Job’s suffering. But this is obviously short-sighted. How easily God could have cleared up all the angst with a simple, “Whoa there, everyone. You’ve got me all wrong. I’m not really to blame for any of this. This is just what happens in a world where free moral agents make sinful choices. Don’t look at me.” That might be a great response for a deist God, but that doesn’t work for the God of the Bible. God’s response, in contrast to the basic thrust of indeterminism, is, “I’m God and I have the right to do whatever I choose. Who are you to question me?”
So the main problem I have with indeterminism is that it’s resolution to the question of suffering really only moves the problem further down the street. Both classical indeterminism and open theism fail to reckon with a God who purposefully chooses to ordain suffering. We can debate about “allow” or “cause” (God does both—I prefer “ordained”) but at the end of the day, no point of suffering visits our life apart from God’s divine will. Even classical indeterminists must acknowledge this when pressed (and not even open theists can deny it, though they try).
As far as theodicy is concerned, I prefer determinism’s willingness to call a spade a spade. It acknowledges up front that God is the ultimate first mover, the One who ordains all things. Nothing happens apart from his divine will. At the end of the day, peace in the midst of suffering comes through submission to the divine will. It comes through trusting that God has a good reason for why he ordains what he ordains in relation to my life. And perhaps even more significantly, it acknowledges that he has the right to do so. Any theodicy that attempts too vigorously to wipe the blood off of God’s hands robs us of the rest that comes from resting submissively in the wisdom of God’s divine care. Such theodicies are an emotional quick fix, but they can’t satisfy the hurting heart in the end. Like Job, we find our ultimate peace in bowing before the mighty hand of a sovereign God who, beholden to no one, has the right to purposefully ordain all things—even suffering—for our good and his glory. Determinism reminds us that God owes us nothing, and yet has given us everything.
At the end of the day, I don’t get too ramped up about determinism and indeterminism. The church has debated this issue for 1700 years and God hasn’t seen fit to put an end to the discussion. If your determinism causes you to think that God “makes” you sin, or that God himself is the direct cause of moral evil, then you’re better off being an indeterminist. Just don’t forget in your indeterminism that God is the Ultimate behind every aspect of your life. Nothing happens to you that he has not purposefully permitted or caused. And if he has a purpose for our unique instances of suffering, we know that his purposes are wise and good, even when we can’t understand them. Don’t get caught up in an indeterminism that tells you don’t have to reckon with God in the midst of your suffering, or that evil visits your life randomly and without purpose (just rotten luck). You’d be better off as a determinist.
Categorized as: From Gerald, Theodicy, Theology
