Once again this week we’ve heard the question, “If there is a God of love why doesn’t He do something about the pain and suffering in this world; why doesn’t He prevent incidents like the shootings at Virginian Tech?” In this post, rather than trying to defend God, I want to turn the question back on those who ask it.
Imagine the following scene. God has come down and granted us an audience, and let’s imagine that the human race has chosen a representative – let’s pick a good one – Bertrand Russell (yes, a resurrection would be necessary), to ask Him the BIG question.
Bertrand: Well, God, I have to admit, I’m a little surprised to discover that you actually exist.
God: Really, Bertrand? Remember, I know your thoughts.
Bertrand: Yes…well, let’s not talk about me; I’m here to ask a question on behalf of the human race. This is my question; why – If you are all powerful and if you are a God of love – do you allow all of the pain and suffering we see in the world around us? And please, don’t give me the “usual Christian argument is that the suffering in the world is a purification for sin and is therefore a good thing.” As far as I’m concerned, “this argument is only a rationalization of sadism” and “in any case it is a very poor argument…I would invite [You] to accompany me to the children’s ward of a hospital, to watch the suffering that is there being endured, and then to persist in the assertion that those children are so morally abandoned as to deserve what they are suffering.”
God: So let me understand this, you say you don’t believe me and yet you’re charging me with sadism at the same time. Do you believe in me or not? It really sounds like you’re more angry than unbelieving.
Bertrand: Once again, let’s keep me out of this; I’m representing the human race here. If you love us, why don’t you do something? My conclusion is that either you can’t do anything about it, in which case you’re not omnipotent, or you’re unwilling, in which case you’re not good. So which is it?
God: Well Bertrand, you should know that I can indeed do something about it. You should also know that I have done something about it. I sent my own Son into the world to do something about it. But You are correct in saying that I have not done what you in your finite wisdom think I should do. Furthermore, since I’m not running the universe the way you think it ought to be run, you contend that I’ve done some wrong to the human race. Very well, Bertrand, I’ll accept that for now. What do you want me to do?
Bertrand: We’ll let’s take this latest event, the shootings at Virginia Tech, would it have been so hard to stop that guy?
God: I think I understand what you’re asking, and from this point on I will do what you want Me to do. From this day forward, whenever a natural disaster is about to strike I will give the world a one year warning. In addition, whenever someone is about to have an accident I will send my angels to protect him? There will be no more premature death. In fact, from now on if a man or women does have an accident – I will immediately repair them, O.K.?
Bertrand: Well…yes, that sounds wonderful.
God: Also, if nations go to war I will intervene to prevent it, and if a person tries to use a weapon to harm another, I’ll turn it to rubber in his hands. And all of this is just the beginning. You want paradise, I’ll give you paradise!
Bertrand: On behalf of the human race, let me just say, thank you and, it’s about time. Have a good day.
God: Wait a minute, Bertrand, if I’m going to do all of this there are a few things the human race is going to have to do in return?
Bertrand: Like what?
God: Massive, worldwide repentance and revival.
Bertrand: What….?
God: Have you heard of the Ten Commandments? They are going to be the law of the world from now on. I want them posted and taught in every public school classroom and prominently displayed in every public building. And I expect them to be strictly enforced.
What’s more, I want the human race to stop aborting its children. You want me to go to the children’s ward with you!? You ought to hear silent screams I have to listen to every day as your so called, “doctors,” tear their little bodies apart in their mothers wombs. You ought to feel the terror I feel when some little one’s skull is pierced by an abortionists scissors just before it’s brains are sucked out. Talk about sadism! AND YOUR POLITICIANS DEFEND IT!
Another thing, I want the sexual revolution repealed immediately, and I want atheist professors like you removed from the class room. Also, I want the popular culture shut down for awhile, and cleaned out after that, so that wholesome films and music can be produced. O, buy the way, the internet is a cesspool, I’m going to clean it up. No more porn, no more violence. In other words, from now on things are going to be done My way.
Bertrand: Why…You’re talking about tyranny! You’re talking about a theocracy! You’re talking about…
God: Morality?
Bertrand: Yes…I mean, no…I mean…Better to reign in hell than to serve in Heaven!
God: You are a devil, Bert. What you are really asking me to do is to let the human race live any old way it wants to live – let them to curse Me, mock Me, disregard My word and celebrate its sin. You want me to bless the world when its calling the things I’ve called righteousness, sin, and the things I’ve call sin, righteousness. What you really want me to do is let the world to be as bad as it wants to be and then bless it anyway? Isn’t that what you’re asking for, Bert?
Bertrand: I’m saying that as God you’re obligated to…
God: I’m obligated to bless a sin filled world that rejects, curses and mocks me, that’s what you’re saying, isn’t it. And I thought you were supposed to be good at logic. Bert, that one just doesn’t follow. Logic would say that given the way the human racehas treated Me and My Son, and given the way it has disregarded all decency and godliness, it doesn’t deserve the world it has. Logic would say that I should have gotten rid of the whole bunch of you a long time ago.
Bertrand: Damn it, God!
God: I intend to, Bert.
NOTE: THERE WAS A VIDEO HERE. FOR THE DISCUSSION THAT LED TO ITS REMOVAL, READ THE COMMENTS TO THIS ARTICLE.
Can you really approve of that video? Does it not seem contrary to the character of God? I do not, and will not, endorse that video, and I was wondering why you do.
By: Anonymous on April 25, 2007
at 11:42 pm
I think the video is very thought provoking. I define the character of God by what the Bible reveals about Him, and the scriptures reveals a God who is moral and just. The Bible says, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap,” (This verse is referenced at the end of the video). The Bible also says, “God will turn the wicked in to Sheol, even all the nations that forget God.” Now, every indident referenced on the video has happened or is happening in our culture. And based on scripture, every incident highlighted can be shown to be either an affront to God or a violation of the moral law that He Himself gave us. So I’m wondering, why do you find it contrary to the character of God to suggest that He may be doing exactly what the scriptures say He will do to individuals or nations who violate the moral order of the universe?
By: Mark Carlton on April 26, 2007
at 2:29 am
While I don’t know what anonymous was offended by, I do sympathize with the unease that accompanies a video like that one. The video seems to take a monumental problem and package it as a propaganda tool for a conservative agenda. The video does little to further an honest discussion [or debate?] on issues like pain, sin on earth, and the meat and potatoes of the issue, free will [which you addressed quite nicely in the actual discussions].
Specifically, the video suggests that God does not exist in schools and will therefore not protect the inhabitants of the school. Bad things happen, not from the actions of free moral agents, but because of a Supreme Court decision. To be sure, there are problems in schools. A root cause of the problem is that schools are no longer forums for rightly educating the mind, but more conveniently used for wrongly suppressing the spirit. But to say that school shootings are caused by a teacher’s impotence to render nondenominational non-offensive lukewarm prayers is like saying post office shootings are caused by improperly addressed letters to God.
Does a political decision affect God? Is God bound by what we bind on earth? If I vote a certain way, is God more, or less, pleased with me than before I cast my ballot? If a political decision, such as not allowing state-official-led prayer in public schools, causes God to do or refrain from doing something, like protecting innocent lives in a school shooting, aren’t we saying the political decision is more powerful than God? Unfortunately, I think some politicians and religious leaders actually think the answer is yes.
By: conroy on April 26, 2007
at 8:22 pm
Excellent post. Reading your response helps me understand why anonymous may have been upset. I viewed the video as ironic social commentary. I never even considered the obvious, that it was an attempt to use the VT tragedy and others like it to push a right wing political agenda. I agree with you that this is wrong. I become angry when the left uses this tactic and I should be equally outraged when the right does the same. I assume the agenda is the restoring of prayer to the public school classroom. Believe it or not, I am not in favor of this. I think the Court was wrong to rule as it did in removing it in the first place. I believe it was an affront to God and of important symbolic importance. However, restoring it to the schools at this point is a little bit like trying to restore one’s virginity. A noble effort, perhaps, but ultimately too late and an exercise in futility. In light of what I consider your compelling argument I will remove the video.
But I would like to comment on your broader point. I think our politics matter to God. No, I don’t think political descisions affect God, but they may affect us. I’m reading an excellent book by Dorthy Sayers, “The Mind of the Maker.” The first chapter, The “Laws” of Nature and Opinion,” is worth the price of the book. Let me quote one very insightful portion of her argument: “When the laws regulating human society are so formed as to come into collision with the nature of things, in particular with the fundamental realities of human nature, they will end by producing an impossible situation which, unless the law are altered, will issue in such catastrophes as war, pestilence and famine. Catastrophes thus caused are the execution of universal law upon arbitrary enactments which contravene the facts; they are thus properly called by theologians, judgments of God.” She goes on to say, “There is a universal moral law, as distinct from a moral code, which consists of certain statements of fact about the nature of man; and by behaving in conformity with which, man enjoys his true freedm. This is what the Christian church calls natural law. The more closely the moral code agrees with the natural law, the more it makes for freedom in human behavior; the more widely it departs form the natural law, the more it tends to enslave mankind and to produce the catastrophes called ‘judgments of God.’”
I was viewing the sorts of things mentioned in the video as illustrations of Sayers point. Thanks to you, I now realize it was not that deep. This is my concern; I am afraid that as our society continues to move away from the moral order of the universe we will see more and more gun-toting monsters produced, and more and more VTs and other asorted evils. Thus, if we refuse to repent, we will reap what we sow. So while our vote certainly will not affect God or His love for us, it just might bring his wrath upon us if we continue choose leaders and enact laws which move us away from the natural law.
By: Mark Carlton on April 26, 2007
at 10:53 pm
Hello, I have been unable to repost for a period of time due to life and that which it entails. I was offended at the notion of some extreme conservative fundamentalists making a video implying that because a law was passed stating that Christian traditions/values would not be allowed to be forced upon all students that God has turned the schools over to Satan and that the shootings were actually good things, because they make us pay attention and show that we should force all students to read the Bible as part of class, and that teachers should have to pray before class. The very idea was so ridiculous! They were mixing in scripture with all of this propaganda. Also, prayer is still allowed in schools. Now, a teacher can’t lead the prayer or require that it happen, but prayer (even group prayer) is still allowed as long as they aren’t forcing others to do the same. The same is true of the reading of scriptures. Any student can bring a Bible and read it in class all they want, unless a teacher doesn’t like students reading in their class instead of paying attention but that would apply to every book not just the Bible. So, as I stated earlier, the laws really are for the protection of individuals. I am a Christian, yet I don’t think it’s right to force someone to pray if that person doesn’t know Christ. To them it would seem foolishness and would be nothing more than a waste of perfectly good oxygen. The one point I thought the video made a decent case for was this: The generation of Young People today are confused as to what is RIGHT and what is WRONG and we do need to make the distinctions between the two clear. I’m not easily offended, I just hate to see something as tragic as children and young adults getting viciously murdered used as an argument against politicians. Democrats, Republicans, Non-Partisans, they are all people. Fallen people at that. Corruption will always be a factor, and I don’t think either party should be able to ride the coattails of a tragic event that will trigger peoples’ emotions to any sort of victory. Well, there you have it. A seemingly random conglomeration of discombobulated thoughts.
By: Anonymous on April 30, 2007
at 6:31 am
Thanks for your response. I agree with much of what you said. As I said in my response to Conroy, I didn’t see the video as an attempt to use the VT tragedy as a way of advancing a right wing political agenda. However, I agree it can be taken that way, and since I object to using tragedy to advance political agendas I removed it from the blog. As I said in my response to Conroy, I was drawn to this video by it’s irony. Specifically, I find it ironic that a culture that has done everything it can to ban God from the public square, disregarded His word and embrace moral relativism, is surprised when the consequences of these choices are visted upon it. I find it ironic that we’re surprised when our young people no longer have the ability to discern between right and wrong and when the culture produces monsters like the VT shooter. And to top it all off, we have the audacity blame God for the messes we ourselves have created. The part of the video I liked was not the beginning — which you and Conroy objected to — but the end, the part about our country reaping what its sown.
By: Mark Carlton on April 30, 2007
at 2:05 pm
Pastor Mark
1 The question of pain and suffering,as relates to the existence and sovereignty of God,really is not a prime existential or theological problem.If you doubt this stance,please refer to the book of Job.
This outstandingly righteous man( at least in terms of how righteousness was conceived at the time ) was afflicted with multiple personal and business tragedies.But the real part to note comes in the last few chapters of the book.God does not in anyway attempt to ‘explain’ why He allowed this innocent man to go through all that he went through.In short,God in His closing conversations with Job gave no reasons for all that took place.It is a classic Calvinist proof text of the sovereignty of God.
2 The matter of the reality of pain and suffering is more a philosophical,or at best, a philosophical theology problem.This is another way of saying that from a strictly scriptural point of view it is a non-issue,as the Bible accepts the reality of evil,pain and suffering in the world,including in the lives of Christians.
By: tunji on May 3, 2009
at 8:05 pm
I’m not sure I understand the statement: “The question of pain and suffering, as it relates to the existence and sovereignty of God, really is not a prime existential or theological problem.” Could you elaborate?
By: markcarlton on May 3, 2009
at 8:12 pm
Pastor Carlton
Maybe I should have said ‘…really is not a prime Scriptural problem’.This is because the Bible mentions,without negative inference,the pain and suffering in the world,without attempting to philosophically explain away the phenomenon.In other words,both where God inflicts pain on His own creation in righteous judgment,and when men inflict harm on each other,the Scripture generally simply describes the incident.God even uses evil to bring about His plan and purpose.
It is largely philosophers, theologians,and especially the philosophical theologians, that are overly concerned with the matter.
By: tunji on May 4, 2009
at 10:40 am
Agreed. This is why I make a philosophical, rather than a scriptural argument.
By: markcarlton on May 4, 2009
at 3:49 pm