Tough questions!!

Someone has asked me: how can you still believe in a good and loving God when you see all the suffering and evil in the world? How can God allow the things that have happened to me, or to the ones I love or to others in the world?

People have written whole books on the subject and I’m no academic. There is no trite answer and I don’t think logic and reason are enough on their own – for me the subjective experience of God comforting me and giving me strength through times of pain has played a significant role.

But we must not ignore reason either. I don’t want to bury my head in the sand when it comes to difficult questions about faith. Nor do I believe that Christians should be immune to criticism, question or challenge! (That means I won’t be offended if you criticise this blog).

So here’s an insight into my thought process as I’ve wrestled with the problem over the course of 20+ years. (It’s rather long so feel free to skip this one if you don’t have time... or come back to it when you are thinking about this issue).

I started by asking: If I were a good and loving God what would I do about evil and suffering? I could think of several possible answers:

1) Ignore the problem and hope it goes away by itself
2) Let people off
3) Wipe out everyone who does wrong.
4) Force everyone to do right
5) Make laws and rules so people know how they should live their lives

Ignore it? We feel outraged when we hear that someone has ‘turned a blind eye’ to something terrible that was going on under their noses. If God is good and loving, he cannot ignore the problem!!

Let them off? This might seem loving but it is not good. My sense of justice screams out ‘foul’. Sadly injustice is part of life on earth – many criminals still get off scot free. But if God is holy, there is no way he can allow that! It’s just not fair.

Wipe out everyone who does wrong? Now we are talking – especially when we hear of another life cut short or a child’s innocence destroyed by abuse! This sounds like justice. The problem here is deciding where to draw the line. What constitutes an offence that deserves instant death?

Consider this: Who should be punished?
* The perpetrators of genocide or those who through apathy or self-interest turn a blind eye to massacre?
* Human traffickers or those who ‘visit’ women and children who have been trafficked into the sex trade?
* Sweat shop owners using slave labour or those who buy cheap goods in the west, more interested in the tag price than the human cost?
* The murderer or the lawyer who makes sure he escapes justice on a ‘technicality’?
* And what price greed? Big business directors raking in massive bonuses while ordinary people lose their jobs and homes and millions more are starving to death?
* What about those who contributes to pollution and climate change? (After all thousands have lost their lives as a result of drought, flooding and toxic waste dumping)
* Somebody who just thought something evil about another or only those who acted on the thought?

The list goes on. None of us is perfect! All of us have done things that are cruel and selfish, whether knowingly or unknowingly, whether in actual deed or just in thought. Where do you draw the line? How can God be loving and start wiping out thousands, millions, maybe billions of people?

So why not force everyone to do right? In the film Minority Report, there are no murders because people are stopped before they can commit a crime. The problem is this takes away choice. The ability to choose; to determine our own actions, beliefs, etc. is at the very core of what it means to be free. If God forced us to act in a particular way, we would be slaves or robots.

Forced obedience is ugly! Watch a child forced to behave by their parents and you will often see resentment. Neither does this satisfy the parent, who longs for the child to comply out of love and not just because they are duty bound. God can’t do that if he really loves us nor would he want it if he desires relationship with us.

Okay, so make laws so people know how they should live their lives… but if I believe in the God of the Bible, he has already done that. It didn’t work. The laws themselves set a good standard (few people would argue with these - do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, take one day of rest each week, love your neighbour as you love yourself etc.). But murder and greed and violence and cruelty and selfishness still exist. People simply haven’t kept God’s laws. If God is good and loving he can’t just write the laws, sit back and do nothing. A law is not worth anything if there are no consequences when it is broken. And then you end up back with the third option (wipe out).

This is great… so I’ve just reasoned my way out of every one of my options… if I was God (good thing I’m not!)

What’s left?
* Either God doesn’t exist.
* Or God is evil
* Or God is powerless to control evil
* Or God, being holy and loving, found another way

If God doesn’t exist the dilemma is more to do with the existence of evil; the injustice and meaningless of life in which people can do evil things and get off scot free, never facing the consequences for what they have done. In this case, what is the basis for a fair moral code when people all have their own agendas and prejudices?

If God is evil it would be logical to assume that he created evil beings and wanted people to be evil. If so, where did good come from? What about all the incredible examples of human love, compassion, self-sacrifice, creativity, beauty, courage, etc.?

If God is powerless then can how he be God? There might as well be no God at all (see option 1).

If God is good and loving, what is his solution? It’s not something I would come up with logically but here’s how I understand it.

God’s way must satisfy the demands of both justice and love. It must provide a means for those who have been hurt to receive healing; for those who hurt others to face up to what they have done and find real power and motivation to change and make reparation; for the possibility of reconciliation without further revenge and hurt; and for those who are suffering to find strength to face and deal with their experiences. God’s solution must also provide the option of punishment for those without remorse or any willingness to change.

So what did God do? (Remember, this is based on the assumption that a good and loving God exists).

God becomes man (Jesus) – stepping right into the problem rather than watching it from a distance.

He lives on earth and experiences grief and pain, temptation, suffering and rejection

He lives a perfect life, according to his own rules (showing how it’s done).

He loves people, heals people, stands up against corruption and injustice, teaches people to ‘love their neighbours’, opposes religious bigotry and hypocrisy, overturns the cultural norms of racism and sexism, hangs out with the outcasts of society,… (and so on…)

Then he suffers – arrest, trial (on the charge of claiming to be the Son of God), violent beatings and humiliation (Roman prisoners didn’t keep their dignity – there would be no modest loin cloth), execution by crucifixion (nails in hands and feet; an agonising death from slow suffocation) and forgives those who kill him… and to complete the picture he conquers death from the inside and comes alive again (yeah… I know… pretty hard to comprehend but IF he is God it makes sense).

God faces the problem of evil and suffering head on. He doesn’t ignore it.

Justice demands punishment. Jesus didn’t shrink away from this. He says “punish me instead, let me bear the consequences”. And the consequences were extreme, violent, painful... God doesn’t take evil lightly. I’m glad – I wouldn’t respect a tolerant, wishy-washy God.

On the other hand, love demands mercy and forgiveness and this also becomes a real option, along with the chance for restoration, transformation and healing. The alternative is vengeance, bitterness and hatred.

Jesus example on the cross calls me to face the reality of suffering and injustice; to share in and be a part of a world that is suffering (no fluffy cotton wool insurance policy against pain and suffering for believers); and to oppose the evil which causes pain and suffering (first in my own life but also by speaking out for justice in society). He offers me the chance to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Suffering seems to either draw people to God or turn them against God. There are times when personal and global issues of suffering become overwhelming and my resources of faith are stretched. In this, I am learning to look to God, sometimes screaming in frustration or desperately asking “why?” but knowing that even though I don’t understand, I haven’t found a better answer anywhere else and other alternatives just don’t make sense to me!!

This is already way too long… and there are so many other reasons I have considered and that influence my belief… but for now, I must stop. What do YOU think?

RGW (aka The Editor)

Black and white and shades of grey

“O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us!” Robert Burns

I’ve just had a scout around an atheists' / agnostics' discussion forum online. One discussion caught my eye. A group of members were looking at the issue of “black and white” vs “shades of grey”.

It was interesting to note how most allied themselves with ‘shades’ while pointing to Christians as ‘black and white’ thinkers. One perceptive writer explored the concept that black and white, and shades of grey are not necessarily incompatible (after all, shades of grey are made up of different mixtures of black and white).

While I will state unashamedly that I believe there are absolute truths which underpin our universe (for example the existence of God), I’m also convinced that so-called “black and white” thinking can, at times, cause damage to the kingdom of God.

The danger comes when we consider our own interpretation of God’s Word to be as infallible as God’s Word and God Himself. We become the judge of what is black and what is white!

If we are convinced we are right, then this means everyone else must be wrong. This kind of inflexibility is at the source of disunity at every level of society. Think about an argument between husband and wife, parent and child or work colleagues. In most arguments, both sides contribute in some way through wrong assumptions, wrong attitudes, wrong words or wrong behaviour.

Black and white thinking tends to preclude the possibility of learning and growing in our understanding; of listening carefully to other viewpoints and respecting other opinions even when we disagree.

From outside, it is perceived as ‘narrow minded’ because there is no willingness to consider any alternative. This type of thinking can appear arrogant in its condemnation of others.

I believe ‘black and white’ thinking can be dangerous both to Christian unity (if we condemn as wrong anyone who interprets scripture in a different way) and to our interaction with those outside the church (if our lack of humility, gentleness and respect portrays a wrong picture of Christ).

There have been times in my life when I was absolutely convinced that I had an issue sorted into black and white until I listened to someone and realised it wasn’t quite so clear cut. At these times, my black and white combined leaving me with grey!

Interestingly enough, some of the agnostics / atheists were pretty black and white in their condemnation of Christians.

How do we respond? By pointing the finger back and being rude?

I prefer to say that I have chosen to follow Jesus because I am convinced that He is the source of all truth. I’m basing my life on scripture but I’m still learning and growing in my understanding. I don't have all the answers and sometimes I get it wrong. In my life, there are blacks and whites and shades of grey.

Do I shock you?

RGW (aka The Editor)

Butcher or artist?

Editing can be a vicious business. An editor has the power to take out the knife (aka the delete button) and slice or even hack away at the precious musings of a budding writer.

It can be agonising to have your work butchered. As an editor and a writer, I have been on both ends of the scale. I have watched my 'babies' mutilated. I've also been accused of ruthless butchering! (pun intended)

At times the accusation is probably justified... it is possible to get over-enthusiastic and cut out perfectly good meat along with the unwanted fat!!

More and more, though, I want to look at the editing process as one of refinement rather than massacre. A sculptor takes a piece of clay. He or she molds and shapes it. Once the basic shape is achieved the art work is not complete. The final stages of careful smoothing, carving and shaping are vital to the finished product.

It is hugely satisfying to edit an article and discover that the original master-piece is more beautiful, vibrant and effective thanks to a careful snip or a slight rearrangement of words.

There are obvious comparisons. If God is the potter and I am the clay, am I willing to submit to the process of refinement in my life? Will I allow the masterpiece to be 'edited'? Or am I fighting back ("no, no... don't take that away... don't do that it hurts... I'm fine just the way I am")?

Fortunately, the Great Editor does not need a warning against ruthlessness! He doesn't make mistakes.

Trying to follow His example I still need to learn to be truly 'ruth-full' :)

RGW (aka The Editor)

A la carte

One of my great pleasures in life is going out for a first-class meal in a good restaurant.

In the days of high salaries and no kids (I'm horrified to admit I'm now talking about the late 80s / early 90s) eating out was a weekly event. Nowadays, it is a rare treat and all-too-often involves selecting the cheapest item on the menu, rather than opting for a delicious first-choice.

A la carte menus are part of our life and culture. Increasingly, we expect a high level of choice and personalisation in almost every sphere.

This morning, I read a thought-provoking article today evaluating Contemporary Catholicism in Ireland (http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=198&art=2042) and in the process spotted this desciption:

"A-la-carte Catholics" - those who choose whichever doctrines and moral guidelines suit themselves, while ignoring the remainder

At the same time I received an email from someone highlighting the trend of DIY spirituality.

How much do Christians pick and choose their beliefs? Are we in danger of making our own religion, based on the doctrines and practices that suit us?

I've come across a number of people recently who, in strongly advocating a particular belief or practice, ignore Bible references that contradict their viewpoint. These include people from reformed backgrounds as well as those from emergent thinking. It made me wonder.

Is my faith a-la-carte? Do I conveniently ignore any scripture reference that might challenge my 'pet' theories or opinions? Does selective amnesia kick in when a Bible truth threatens to get in the way of my chosen behaviour?

Food for thought!
RGW
(aka The Editor)