I have been slow in getting a secondary response out regarding the Hurricane tragedy and its aftermath. The coverage has been difficult at times for me to watch. I feel so helpless, and so frustrated by the state of the world. I have been asked a couple of times various questions by people (teenagers especially) seeking to come to grips with theodicy (figuring out how the existence of a benevolent God can reconciled with the existence of evil).
One girl in the youth group said, “If everything happens for a reason, then why did God allow this?” I have heard various responses, the worst of which was, “Because he doesn’t want Mardi Gras to continue.”
And the more I grapple with that question, the more I realize no answer will suffice because the question is flawed. The question not just assumes that everything happens for a reason, but it is God’s reason that things happen. I totally disagree with such logic. The Bible is clear that humans must live with the consequences of sin. We inherit the sins of those who have gone before us and will deal with the consequences of our own sins. Everything does happen for a reason, but it isn’t God’s reason.
Let me lay out the reasons that such a tragedy might befall our nation. They all come under the heading of arrogance/pride/selfishness. For example, why is New Orleans under water? Because a levy broke. Why did a levy break? First of all, we as humans decided that we could harness nature, and reroute rushing rivers to where we wanted them to flow. And we accomplished this feat through a system of dams/levies that were built to withstand a fierce storm (category 3), never imagining that nature would have the audacity to bring anything stronger.
Then, when a stronger storm did come, we thought that we were safe in our finely constructed buildings. A little wind can’t destroy our technology can it? After all, we have overcome anything nature can throw at us. So we stay put, expecting this little nuisance to just blow over.
But it didn’t just blow over. Nature wreaked havoc. It snubbed its nose at our reinforced concrete. It laughed at our levies. And in the end, it reminded me who I am compared to the power of God:
“Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt’?
Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water?
Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
Who endowed the heart with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind?
Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together?”
“I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.
Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”
--Job
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
I don't know, Sam. The answer doesn't cut it for me. You begin by saying, "Not God's reasons." And end by saying, "Wow. the power of God." there seems to be something contradictory there. As the text explains, god sent the rain. Pointing to the poor city planning seems to dodge the question. Why did God send a storm that would have these consequences.
Also, I don't think it was the engineers and planners of the Big Easy that lost the most. Most of those who died were the poor.
I don't have a better answer, however. I guess I wouldn't rule out any possibilites.
I thought the same thing as Shannon, I'm going to be doing this dicussion in Adult Sunday School this week so I found it interesting.
The question is why'd God send a hurricane? You didn't start at the beggining.
My answer? The fall. The sin of man caused nature to spiral out of control too. All creation groans. So it still has a reason which originates in sin.
Why innocents paid? Because sin is a community problem. We've all sinned and deserve getting wiped out by whatever comes out way. The real question is why haven't we all be killed? Wow. The grace of God.
I thought that you excluded the option that it might actually be God that caused the hurricane. I don't know if it was or wasn't.
God could've sent the hurricane for more explicit reasons that just the fallen state of man. He could've sent it because he is punishing America, because of the immorality of New Orleans, or any other of legitimate alternatives. Punishment like that doesn't seem to be outside of his track record.
I wrote that reply before I read your reply on my blog.
Barry said "The falll of man caused nature to spiral out of control." I get where you're going, but it seems like a somewhat Deistic attempt to let God off the hook. It's just not that convincing.
I stil don't have a better answer. I just think that if you are going to answer for God, it'd better be really good.
Yeah, I came to the same conclusion as Shannon. You say one thing at the start and then finish with something different.
Could God have sent the storm? Yes he COULD have.
Did he send the storm? I personally don't think so. I tend to lean towards a random act of nature.
Why do bad things happen...sin.
Fabian
Perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I thought. Did God send it? Yes and no. I don't think it was in judgment, I think instead it is part of the way Nature has changed as a result of sin in the world. We can list a variety of reasons that such storms exist - global warming caused by pollution, destruction of the environment, etc. That was compounded by arrogance by humanity assuming we could control the power of God displayed in nature. In the end, I believe the power is God's, but the cause is humanity's sinfulness.
Maybe that clears it up, maybe you still disagree. Either way, let me know.
so, the storm existed and was created by God's power because of a general fallenness of man? Is that what you mean?
I would say Deistic is not a bad things at times. I do think the worlds natural processes are left to wind their course for the most part. God interfering is the exception not the rule. It's not letting God off the hook anymore than giving Him undue credit when a sick person gets well. Both could be just natural processes and both could be God interacting. We don't know.
Although I think an argument could be made that all good things are directly allowed by God (hmmm... sounds like scripture.) Could good only happen with God's involvement? My answer to "Why do bad things happen?" is always firstly, "Why do good things happen?"
Barry said:
"I would say Deistic is not a bad things at times. I do think the worlds natural processes are left to wind their course for the most part. God interfering is the exception not the rule. It's not letting God off the hook anymore than giving Him undue credit when a sick person gets well. Both could be just natural processes and both could be God interacting. We don't know."
But then you and Sam turn around and act like you know that it wasn't God's direct involvment. How do you know?
Perhaps the problem is in the question, as Barry may have alluded to. The question puts God on trial. "Why did he do or allow (not a huge difference in my mind) allow this?" The question obligates us to defend God's actions/inactions. Yet we (like Job) are typically not privvy to God's specific motive in a situation. Who has known the mind of the Lord?
I would agree. But in talking about the subject, I think we need to be careful to not say he did or didn't directly cause it unless we have a direct word from the Lord telling us one way or the other.
The lesson to me is what does God want us to learn about Him through this. Whether he caused it or not is irrelevant. God will work all things for the good of His people. How can we be part of His using this for good?
So God may have purposely drowned small children and babies?
Reagan: i specifically said you could start with "Why did God send a hurricane."
I didn't rule out He did. I just suggested their are other options.
"So God may have purposely drowned small children and babies?"
I don't like it, but maybe. Hasn't he done so in the past? Think the bigger Flood. Think Soddom and Gomorrah.
It's hard to swallow, but I go back to Job. God asks, "Who do you think you are to question me?"
He may have. It's tough to accept, but that is the God of the Bible.
Every biblical example I can think of when God directly or directly ordered the killing of children it was because they were a part of a totally depraved culture.
So, if God was responsible for this then you must say that NO or the US was totally depraved. If you say you don't think this is a situation of total depravity then you must say it was simply a random disaster that God allowed (more deistic). I would say they weren't totally depraved so therefore I believe this was simply a random act carried out due to nature corrupted by the fall mixed with unwise decisions of men.
I don't know how one measures depravity, but New Orleans would've been competing for the #1 spot for the most depraved city in America. And that is in a depraved nation.
I've seen a ref. to Job but not specifically to the loss of his children. I always assumed they were grown and older, but does scripture say they were not innocent or that they were depraved. We know that God allowed the wind storm to come and distroy his household (children). Is that much different from sending (or allowing to be sent) a storm to destroy a city including the innocent?
Barry, before I give you an example, I should point out that you made a logical leap. You say if NO was not depraved, we must conclude randomness or the lack of God's direct involvement, because in Scripture God only did such things to depraved nations. I think that's a leap. What you are talking about is a pattern which would lead us to a reasonable assumption, not a indisputable text ("I only do such things when there is depravity", says the Lord) that would disallow any other conclusions. I think this is called arguing from silence. "He's never done it a different way, therefore he would never do it another way."
As for a non-depraved examples, how about Achan's family?
Achan as a father in OT custom would have represented his family. Therefore his sin was their sin.
I don't see any NT examples. I think God deals with sin differently post resserection which is why you don't see Chrisitans, or Jesus, leading a revolt against depraved Rome.
I just don't think you can make a Biblical case for God possibly wiping out NO for their sin. If that's why there are plenty of other spots in line before them. Or are you saying He just randomly kills some people for sin, innocents included?
Once again we all deserve only death and misery, so if he does it's not unjust. I just don't think I'm ready to go there.
I continue to lean toward the Deistic side post-resserection. God is responsible for the good, fallen nature and sinful man for the bad. But, I realize this is more instinct the biblically based reason at this point.
I guess I'd have a problem saying to those in NO, "One possiblity is God just decided it was time for some of you to die."
Maybe in situations were massive "random" tradgedy and death strike it is Satan doing it because God as withdrawn His protection. That would match up with Romans where we see when man surpreeses God's truth God turns them over to the full consequences of their sin.
Ananias and Saphira and the book of Revelation are two NT examples of how God has not changed so much.
I think it would be easier to make a case that God sends natural disaster because of sin from Scripture than to make a case that nature is random and outside of God's will from Scripture. There are many examples of the first and no examples of the second.
However, we don't know what happened. We don't know what part God played in it or why he played wha part. And my whole point is we need to be o so careful about speaking for God without revelation.
I think some are a little to quick to use the book of Job to say, "Heck, we can't figure the purpose of tradgedy out." At the end of Job he's the only one left in the dark. We know why it happened.
By the way, how do you spell tragedy?
What about the famine in Eygpt? It doesn't say God sent it. It seems to be just a natural event.
So, would you say that we should look at Job and say, "Oh, that's why bad things happen"? NO is detroyed because Satan thought some guy down there would not continue to love God if tested, and God wanted to prove him wrong.
It seems obvious to me that the point is that things happen that we do not know about, cannot know about short of revelation. Do we have revelation here?
" What about the famine in Eygpt? It doesn't say God sent it. It seems to be just a natural event."
Again, you argue from silence. The only thing we know is that at least sometimes weather is directly the product of God's will.
So you're saying every flood, storm, tornado, drought, that happened in the OT times but that isn't mentioned were all caused by God? The reason you have the ones God was invovled with mentioned was because they were the exception to what people were normally experiencing. When it was by God we are told. When it isn't from God, as in the famine in Eygpt, the writer doesn't need to say, "Not from God". It's obvious.
Annanias and Sapphira aren't mentioned to show that everytime somone dies suddenly God killed them for sin. It is to show a extreme instance that God is directly acting compared to the norm which is just the nature of things.
Acutally, as I think about it. God tends to be pretty ready to reveal when He has directly stepped in in these cases.
I'm not arguiong that God's causes every natural disaster. I'm saying we do not know. You say the times it directly credits God's hands are the exception. That's reasonable, but it is still an assumption. And I think it is dangerous to use your assumptions to speak for God. You get?
And I don't know how to make myself any clearer, so I'm going to step back.
But, it's an reasonable assumption which I would be comfortable making with someone in a tragedy instead of saying "God might have just said it's your time."
I would say, we don't ALWAYS know but I don't believe God is doing this too you.
It seems I lean toward deism while you lean toward agnosticism. Not wholly in those camps, but leanings.
Both leaning arrived at, what we believe to be, reasoned assumptions. I'd just rather lean "I can be pretty sure" than "I can't know."
I would love to join in, but Shannon said everything I agree with. Barry and I disagree again. All is right with the world. Okay, maybe not, but at least Barry and I are back to being on different pages.
You guys sound like non-instrumentalist. Where the bible is silent we are silent :)
I'm not a non-instrumentalist. If you said you received word from God (in the form of a revelation) that he didn't cause this, then I would be fine with it. Not even close to a non-instrumentalist.
I know you are going to go back to the drowning babies example again, but I am concerned that too often we jump to the conclusion of defining "bad."
So often we try and argue or justify "why bad things happen to good people," which I think the answer Jesus gave was mind-blowing and is the premise for this post (John 9:1-3)
Just how can we, with our limited viewpoint of how He moves, even begin to explain what is bad? I am not even alluding to good coming from bad circumstances, I am referring to things that we may consider to be bad are not bad.
We are so eager to live without pain, but pain can be a gift; death can be a gift. If Pharoh's heart was already evil, if Saul was bent on pride, does God need our permission to use that to point others to Him?
We should all be sent to Hell in a handbasket. The very breath I am breathing right now is a gift from God. Did God make me type this post; did he get me this internet connection at a coffee shop... dunno, but He certainly allowed it. Every extra moment is a gift and whatever God gives or takes away is more that I deserve (or far less than I actually deserve, however you look at it). I think this is why people are so eager to use Job (Blessed be the Name of the LORD), not so much as God's actions or allowing things, but some of Job's attitude. Obviously not all, but some... and God's response. Oh, I think chapters 38 and into 42 say so much about this issue if we would just listen to the words God spoke to Job. My God is big enough to take my anger with Him, He is not shocked by my frustration in Him... but it is so unwarranted... He is patient for me to learn that... and He will answer...
Have people ask themselves this, instead of why did God "kill" so many people: Why did He spare so many? Again, I am not attempting to spin this, but honestly, look at where New Orleans is... in all of His grace and patience, how is it that He spared it from disaster for this long? It is 10 feet below sea level.
I just want to clarify or expound perhaps... My only purpose in this life is to bring glory to Him. With this knowledge my prayer becomes, "If I am to succeed to bring You glory, may I succeed humbly; If my failure brings you glory, may I fail miserably."
Jesus asks us, no, He commands us that if we are going to follow Him we must take up our cross and follow His lead. The cross was not an icon at the time, it was the equivilant to the electric chair. Take up your death and follow me. 1 Peter tells us not to be surprised when suffering comes... this would be another wonderful text for this time.
John Piper says it so much better and I do not have it here with me but to paraphrase, a day lived in service under suffering is more evangelistically powerful than a life time spent in comfort allegience to our Savior. I botched it, but you get his point.
The goal here is serving Him and He has so much better planned for us. I have to give up all that I think is important, all that I would call "good" for Him. He may not require it, but I need to be ready to do so and when He allows someone else not to suffer when I am suffering then I cannot do what Peter did and say, "What about him?" Jesus' response is the same to me as it was to Peter... what business is that of yours? If I choose to let him live until my return, what business is that of yours? This is how you shall serve me.
If God can use the death of my wife, my children, the loss of the comfort He has provided me, then I must accept it and do it in service to Him. It is a far better thing I do then the so called luxaries of this world. But obviously this is for the believer... what about the non-believer? What do we say to the non-believer?
I love the annotated version Francis of Asissi gives the Great Commisssion (not that Jesus needed it, but we obviously lost much of the original intent): "Go into all the world preaching the gospel... use words when necessary." I go back to Piper's explanation... the way the Church, the way Christians react to this disaster and answer this all important question you are posing will be the most true answer to why God allows bad things to happen to good people.
I think this question is based on a prosperity gospel... therin in lies the problem. Perhaps I am just repeating myself, but I wanted to add that.
I agreed with him, so I'm sure somebody didn't. Any takers?
Post a Comment