Dogmatics 53 Captioning provided By: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 1924 Lombard, IL 60148 ******** This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. ******** >> Isn't evil a real problem for Christians? Is there something we can do about it? >> David, certainly evil is a real problem for Christians in at least two importance senses. First, there is the evil that we do and the evil that we are, our sins and our sinfulness. Sin, after all, is not just mistakes or failures, but disobedience to God and to His will. And sinfulness is not just a matter of ignorance or finitude or weakness, it's a thorough and deep corruption in us. So, yes, in that sense evil is a problem, a real problem. We cannot atone for the sins that we commit and we can do nothing to overcome the sinfulness that is within us. And, second, there is also evil in the sense of that which causes trouble and pain, that which threatens and harms us and others. The evil, the evil ones and the evil things for which Christ taught us to pray: Deliver us from evil. So the existence of evil poses a great problem when you think about it and when you have to think about it. The problem of evil goes like this: God is good. God is almighty. Evil exists. This involves an obvious paradox. If God is good and God is almighty, then how can there be evil? How can there be that which is not good, that which opposes Him? But before we discuss this problem, let me say something about what we might call the problem of suffering. By this I mean the tendency to identify suffering, any and all suffering, anything and everything that could be construed as suffering, the tendency to identify suffering as evil. Now, let me be clear about this. Evil does cause suffering and great suffering, and that really is a problem. But not all suffering is evil, but a lot of Christians seem to think so. Helmut Tielka, a German theologian, put His finger on this issue when he visited the United States in the 1960s. As He traveled, he said that he was asked repeatedly to identify and discuss the greatest problem of our time. He said that among Americans he could find among them very little place for suffering. In other words, Americans in dealing with suffering regard it as something to be eliminated or eradicated. Or if that wasn't possible, to be avoided or to be minimized. And this seemed to extend to almost anything that could be considered "suffering." Tielka's observation is still valid today. Suffering still is to be eliminated or eradicated, to be minimized or avoided. And still, today, a lot counts as suffering. Because of this tendency to identify suffering as evil, it can pose some great morale dilemmas when suffering is involved. I think really clear examples come with life issues, like euthanasia and abortion. Well, take euthanasia, the notion of good death, what we sometimes call mercy killing. Because we regard suffering as evil, we are willing to entertain, even call, something that's evil, good. Mercy killing. The same kind of reasons are sometimes put forward for abortion. Now, when suffering is evil, when suffering as such is evil, there can be real problems. And so in America, so also in the church in America. Think about talking about topics like election, or the topic we have before us, Providence. Or about Jesus alone being the savior of the world. These are things which cause a certain kind of suffering, they cause us to, as it were, suffer God. In other words, they cause us to realize that we are in the hands of God, we are at the mercy of God, we are nothing of ourselves before God. God's Providence, as we discussed earlier, means the end of human freedom in some kind of ultimate, absolute way. So does election. So does the notion of Jesus being the savior of the world. So in addressing them, the problem of suffering, what Luther had to say about suffering and the cross, in the Heidelburg disputation, in talking about the theologian of the cross and the theologian of glory, there is quite directly, Luther said: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore, He prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and in general good to evil. These are the people whom the Apostle calls enemies of the cross, from Phillipians 3. For they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil, and the evil of a deed good. God can only be found in suffering and the cross as has already been said. Evil does cause suffering, but not all suffering is evil. And when suffering as such, when all suffering is regarded as evil, typically then works are called good. Gerhardt Ferdi is right when He says: There is then unnecessary relation between works and the way we regard suffering. We work to avoid suffering, mostly for here, but sometimes also for the hereafter. Or, if we don't work to avoid suffering, we run from it. We might even work to stave off the fear of death, not to say the suffering of hell. We depend upon and glory in our works and we call these self serving deeds good. Suffering, we insist, is bad. Now, that's what we might call the problem of suffering. And let's see, then, how this helps us understand more clearly the problem of evil and the problem in dealing with the problem of evil. You know, again, the problem of evil goes like this: We can say these are true. God is good. God is almighty. Evil exists. To say all three things are true involves a paradox, an obvious one, a troubling one. If God is good and God is almighty, then how can there be evil? And if there is evil, how can God be either good or almighty? The attempt to solve the problem of evil is called a Theoddessy, and that is an attempt really to justify God. In his book "The Domestication of Transcendence," William Plocher deals with what he calls how the modern thinking about God went wrong. And a substantial portion of the book is devoted to God's activity in the world and the way that Christians have seen it. And the problem of evil comes in for a clear and close discussion. In His treatment of things, Plocher discusses also premodern, in other words, thinkers from before the 17th century. People like Thomas Acquinas, people like Luther and John Calvin, and he identifies as others have that there was much more reluctance to solve the problem of evil. In other words, they were much more willing to live with the terrible mystery that is involved with the truth that God is good, God is almighty, but that there is evil. Modern thinking, however, has typically, says Plocher, sought to answer the question. Modern thinkers, modern theologians, modern Christians, Plocher argues, seem to live under the imperative to solve this problem. Here's some ways that it's handled. A few people suggest that evil isn't really all that bad. For example, it can be argued with without suffering, pain, there would be no progress. There would be no civilization. There would be no advancing culture. So suffering and pain really aren't evil, and these things aren't in the long run bad. I have to say that very few people in the face of the kinds of suffering and pain that are found not only because of natural causes, disease, famine, earthquakes, storms and the like, but also the evil that people can visit on each other, the violence and pain and cruelty which human beings are capable of, that the idea that there is an evil or evil isn't that bad doesn't fly. Perhaps, though, then, it's God's goodness which isn't really quite what we think, being good sometimes, it's argued, isn't really what we conceive of as good. In other words, on the topic of goodness and the idea of goodness we equivocate when it comes to talking about God. That's another way to try to deal with, to try to solve the problem of evil. Today, though, by far, the most common solution of the problem of evil compromises God's omnipotence, compromises on God's power and might. It isn't necessary to say that God couldn't do all things, but God doesn't. So, why is there evil? God let's it happen. Well, what about God then? What is good about that? The goodness of God is not found in preventing evil, but as is sometimes said, in identifying with us in our suffering, in suffering along with us. In an article from the '80s, Ronald Getz identified this tendency as the new orthodoxy. In other words, he said that the idea of a suffering God was the predominant view of God in the 20th century. God as one who is almighty, in control of all things was, as it were, out. The idea of God who is near to us, who lives close to us, who is with us in the good times and the bad times, the God who suffers with us, was, as it were, in. Getz went on to say that this itself is a greater problem than the God who is remote. With the God who is remote, we have an almighty God, one who could do something about suffering. But the God who only can identify with us in our suffering, the God who can only stand on the sidelines and watch disasters, watch cruelty, watch violence, well, he was not much use at all. Theoddessys, in other words, attempt to justify God, are really the hallmark of a theologian of glory. The problem of evil is something that can cause itself suffering. And that's a suffering that really can be and is good. In other words, it's the kind of suffering by which God leads us to realize, to recognize, to acknowledge, to know inside personally that He is God, that we are creatures, that in all things we are at His mercy. That's the kind of suffering that is good, because it leads to the death of the old Adam within us, the sinful creature within us, and allows the new to be brought out by God in His grace. Remember what we said about salvation in connection with the Heidelburg disputation. It happens by God does it by bringing out the opposite first. God kills then makes alive. God terrifies, then justifies the terrified. God brings down then raises up. The kind of suffering that is raised with the problem of evil is the kind of suffering that comes about by being brought face-to-face with God, so to speak. Remember as God said, no one can see His face and live. In a sense, when we are forced to look at God in His majesty, that's the end of us. Theoddessys, you might say, try to save God from us. Look how they turn things entirely upside down. Instead of the church being the place where God saves sinners, here we have sinners trying to save God. In a sense, this is the problem that comes up with the problem of evil. The problem of evil forces us to speak about God. The question isn't whether we will be theologians, the question again as we talked about in the very beginning is what kind. Of ourselves what can we do about it? Nothing. As sinners, we can't abide the living God. But it is God who makes us over. It is God to makes us into theologians. It is God who then in the faithful speaking of the faithful theologian brings about the same in others, the same kind of suffering, the same kind of good suffering that leads to life. So then is evil a problem for Christians? Yes. Is the problem of evil a problem for Christians? Yes. Is it something that we should avoid? Definitely not. In some respects, you can't. You can try to run, but you can't hide.