Dear Mr. Degitis,
I have a theological question, and in an effort to save class time I'm sending it via email rather than asking it in person. This question is somewhat popular, but I have never heard it answered by someone well educated in theology such as yourself. In the year 1755, there was a very large earthquake in the Catholic, holy city of Lisbon, Portugal. This earthquake struck on All Saints' Day while everyone was in church worshiping. At that time period the tallest buildings were generally churches which made them especially susceptible to earthquakes. 80,000 people died in their churches from the earthquake which was followed by a tsunami which wiped out the rest of the city. If god is all loving why would this have happened? This points to the idea that either god is not all powerful, assuming he controls the weather, or He is not all good/the form of goodness. What is your take on this incident, and do you think people's faith indirectly led to their deaths?
Thanks.
(Response)
This is a really fascinating topic, and an absolutely tragic event. I do think there are a lot of theological implications here, and while I might not be able to address all of them, I will certainly do my best to address a few.
I think that the first thing that must be avoided is the ultimatum posed by the situation. While the circumstances are most unfortunate, I do not necessarily think that they inevitably point to God's lack of omnipotence or the fact that He must not be a benevolent God. The reason lies in the fact that the logic in such an argument is somewhat flawed. Essentially it is claiming that if God is good then He would have stopped the earthquake, butsince He didn't stop the earthquake He is either not good, or was unable to do so. Thus we are left with either a God who is not benevolent, or one who is not omnipotent, both of which are claims that go against the nature of the Christian God. However, I think that you can see how this question sets God up for "failure". It is a circular logic that inevitably points to the exact claim the asker is trying to make. A trap of sorts. This is particularly problematic because the trap is based on a number of "human" notions that we are then trying to ascribe to God, the largest of which, is our definition of what is good. Unfortunately, we are only able to think of things in relatively small increments (not because we are not intelligent, but because we are limited). God, however, is able to see things in what is best described as the bigger picture. We see a tragedy, but we do not know how it fits into the greater plan. We want God's benevolence to relate to every single moment, but what we might be missing is the fact that His benevolence is relating to the ultimate (or often time referred to as the greater) good. The questions are a reflection of our very limited scope and very human definition of what it means to be good.
Another component to this that is somewhat interesting is the dynamic between can't and won't. There is a great deal of theology (Christian, Jewish, etc.) that suggests that God seldom gets involved because His presence would too radically impact our freewill. If we knew that there was a God because He showed Himself to us, then we are not choosing to follow, worship, love Him. Ultimately, He is God and if we knew that, we would do whatever He said. However, He wants to be in relationship with us and thus, a number of scholars would argue that He often times refrains from involvement so as to leave our hearts open to choose. Love is a choice, it can not be forced. So how does this relate to the questions at hand? Well, God created the earth and natural disasters are a component of our planet's evolution and renewal. As inhabitants, there are times when we fall victim to those natural disasters. Not because we have wronged God, or because He is angry with us, but because it is a natural consequence of our interaction with the world. Sure, God could have stopped the earthquake, but then where do we draw the line? Should He stop all natural disasters? Should He stop disease? Suffering in general? You see, this is the inevitable rabbit whole down which we begin to fall when asking these types of questions, but it happens because we are thinking too small. Ultimately God's goodness might manifest in the realization of His kingdom, and while it might be a rocky road to get there, the fact that we chose to stick with Him along the way is important. Everything works out in the end, and if it isn't working out, it just isn't the end yet ;)
Lastly, and this is a much more mystical approach, but one that is interesting nonetheless; a number of scholars argue that this world is a spiritual battleground. A place where the souls of men, women and children undergo the constant mêlée of spiritual warfare. I personally believe that there is some truth in this line of thought though I don't know exactly how far I am willing to take it. With that said though, there is a component of this that absolutely cries spiritual warfare. What better way to make people question their faith then to present them with the seemingly pointless death of thousands of believers? In the book of Job, when the Devil was trying to dampen Job's faith, he stopped at nothing to do so. He wiped out his family, his farm, he plagued him with boils, the suffering was endless. I think in many ways (if spiritual warfare is truly a thing) then the tactics may not have changed. The Devil knows that the best way to turn a soul is to make it suffer and believe that God is not there to do anything about it. And if we continue to look at Job as an example, God allows Job to be tested, and yet, Job preservers. This again is an example of Job choosing His faith in the presence of Darkness. Furthermore, God does say "Who are you to question me?" and I've always found that particularly fascinating. Not because it seems aggressive or unnecessarily, but because it really points to this fact that we have no understanding of the greater mysteries of this world. We question God because we think we know best, and I would contend that that isn't actually the case. If we follow this approach, or any of them for that matter, then yes, in some ways, these people could have died because of their faith. The bible suggests that we will suffer if we we follow God. That suffering simply looks different from person to person. No one said that it is supposed to be easy.
Now you're more of a straightforward/scientific thinker, so that last element might not particularly appeal to you, but I hope you find some explanation in the other two. In the end, I think that this situation is a sad one, and I don't know that I can give it just explanation. But I also do not think it points to a God that is not all powerful or one that is not good. I know that God cares for us deeply and I believe that He does not want us to suffer, but on the road to the kingdom, that might be somewhat of an inevitability. Christ even says so in John 16:33.
Anyway, I hope this provides a little insight. Feel free to write back with more questions, or seeking further explanation if something doesn't quite make sense.
You rock.
MRD
No comments:
Post a Comment