I am the cut and paste theologian, nice to meet you. I found this in the open letter, it is Docs (that is what we call Greg around here) response to the sept 11th attack.

quote:

---

“Why God?” Is the Wrong Question

by Dr. Gregory A. Boyd | pastor, professor,
president of Christus Victor Ministries


Was God Punishing Us?

Since the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, many people have asked the question, “Why did God allow this to happen?” Many Christian leaders have answered this question by suggesting that God was punishing our country for reaching an all-time low in moral behavior. As one well-known evangelist put it, God was serving us a “wake up call” to get our nation right with God.

Certainly America wins no awards for its morality. And it’s true that in the Old Testament God sometimes judged nations when their iniquity had reached “full measure” (e.g. Gen 15:16). But is there any indication that this is what God was doing through the terrorists’ attacks on September 11th? Why America? Aren’t some other nations even worse off morally, and thus “more deserving” of punishment, than America? Not only this, but what are we to make of the fact that there are many indications that America is actually moving in a more conservative direction on some moral issues (e.g. premarital sex and births out of wedlock are on the decline)?

The view that God was giving us a “wake up call” on September 11th raises other questions as well. Would God carry out such a punishment in this way and expect that the majority of Americans would get the point? What good is a “wake up call” if those you’re addressing don’t know that you are calling them to “wake up”? If someone rather suggests that the point of the atrocity was simply for God to justly punish America for its sin, we have to wonder what Christ’s death accomplished. Is God still in the business of making people "pay" for their sin? And how did the 6,000 people who lost their lives in this atrocity get chosen to die? Were they all greater sinners than the rest of us? Not only this, but what are we to think of the hundreds and perhaps thousands of Afghan people who will likely die as a result of the ensuing war? If God was punishing us through their terrorists, is God punishing them through our retaliation?

Other Christian leaders do not pretend to know what God’s purpose was in allowing the terrorists attacks, but they nevertheless insist that God must have his reasons. Somehow this atrocity fits into a grand divine plan. Nothing happens outside of God’s sovereign control, they insist, so the event must have been allowed, or even ordained, for a greater good.

The Approach of Jesus

Jesus had a very different approach to atrocities like the one we have experienced. When a multitude of Galileans were murdered by Pilate, Jesus asked a crowd, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans?” He answered, “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did” (Luke 13:1–3). When a tower fell and killed eighteen people, Jesus asked, “do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem?” And again he answered, “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did” (Luke 13:4–5). Jesus is saying that people should not try to discern the punishing hand of God in atrocities. They should rather concern themselves with their own relationship with the Father.

This attitude characterized all of Jesus’ ministries. He spent his ministry reaching out to people who were in different ways victims of a fallen, cursed world: the marginalized, the oppressed, the deaf, the mute, the blind, the deformed, the demonized. And never once did Jesus suggest that their affliction was punishment for sins they or someone else had done. Indeed, never once did Jesus suggest that their affliction in any way fit into a divine plan. On the contrary, Jesus assumed that their affliction was contrary to God’s will. Rather, Jesus expressed God’s will by coming against these peoples’ afflictions. Indeed, often Jesus explicitly identified the ultimate source of their afflictions as being Satan or one of his demonic cohorts (e.g. Luke 11:14, 13:11–16; Mark 9:25; cf. Acts 10:38; 1 John 3:8).

One episode in the Gospels is often interpreted as a counter-example of this response. Jesus and his disciples came upon a blind man. His disciples asked, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” In most translations, Jesus answers, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him” (John 9:1–3). This response is considered evidence that blindness is as much the result of God’s activity as is the healing from blindness. However, the words “he was born blind so that” are not in the original Greek. The Greek simply has, “let the works of God be revealed in him.” Jesus then shows what the work of God is by healing the man (John 9:4–7). Far from suggesting that God causes blindness (as punishment or for any other reason), Jesus once again dismisses the quest to find a divine reason for misfortunes like blindness—or politically—motivated murders, or falling towers!

The Right Question

From the perspective of Jesus’ ministry—the perspective Christians should model their own thinking on—we are asking the wrong question when we ask, “Why did God allow this or that atrocity.” Like Jesus, we should rather ask, “How can we work the works of God to amend this atrocity?”

God does not have a divine purpose for allowing, or ordaining, atrocities like the attack on September 11th, any more than God has a purpose for allowing Pilate to murder Galileans or allowing people to be killed in falling towers. In a cosmos populated with free agents, human and angelic, many of which have turned against God, things are going to happen that God does not will. When they do, the “why” is located in them, not God.

This is not the final word, however. God does have a purpose for what he can do with atrocities, once they occur. God is not caught off guard when terrible things happen. Because he is a God of infinite intelligence, he has from all eternity been foreknowing and preparing for every possibility, including atrocities. When tragedies which he does not will occur, he has a plan in place for how he can use this tragedy to further his purposes in the world. And usually this plan involves humans. He wants us to pray, to love, to show compassion, to sacrifice, and to do all we can do to alleviate the senseless suffering created by tragedies like the one we experienced on September 11, and like the one many innocent Afghan people are now experiencing.

But we will not hear God’s voice calling us to respond to atrocities according to his will if we are mistakenly fixed on trying to figure out what God’s will was for allowing atrocities in the first place.

---

quote:

---

If Doc concedes that God has used horrific pain, suffering, and death at times in the past, how can we ever know whether an act of "evil" is actually God-ordained or not? At best, we can assume (read hope) that God was not behind it. We may not think there is any good reason why God would be punishing us, but do we really know?

---

Dearest sir...DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!! You've just won the "Crack In the Theory" Prize! Seriously though, I think you are right on. I have written at least 2 significant posts on just this VERY subject. (I will find them and REPOST them here for you and others to read when I can) You posed the question JUST LIKE it should be posed. You realize the problem. With Doc's system, the BEST that one can do is try to garner psychological certainty about God's nature...and based upon that, DEDUCE (some would say assume) that God COULDN'T be involved in gross evil. But you saw past that a bit, didn't you? (Hence, your "read hope" notation)

Surely, you've seen that given the premises of Doc's warfare worldview, there is NO WAY with certainty that Doc could know whether or not God was ULTIMATELY behind any specific incident of evil...OR GOOD. (This is explicitly spelled out in my forthcoming post) Like you said, all one would have is hope. Moreover, your further comments are even MORE pressing! You say:

quote:

---

To me, the warfare perspective on evil is powerful because, as you state so well in your books, it removes the "problem" of evil. There is only a "problem" if a good God has something to do with an evil act. What is so enticing about the warfare position is that one does not need to wonder whether God ordained an evil act or not--evil always stems from the created, not the Creator. This is exciting. . .and simplifying. [Meph's note: In some cases, I would say perhaps OVERsimplifying.] I can look at any evil thing that happens in the world, whether it be the pain and tragedy of the Holocaust, or a pesky case of the flu, and immediately disassociate it from God's hand. Furthermore, I know to fight against it, because God is against it.

But that all changes if I concede that God is in fact involved in some catastrophes. Suddenly, I cannot automatically condemn the Holocaust as an attack of Satan. Perhaps it was instead a judgment of God upon His people, much like the just-as-horrific sieges, slaughters, etc., that God explicitly ordained in the OT.

---

VERY astute thinking there, BJS. And let me show you something else. See, many people want to really knock the views of Calvinism especially the ideas of the "two wills" of God, decretal and prescriptive. (Others call them other names) But this is what makes the MOST sense. Think about it. In the END analysis, the ONLY thing that matters is for us to respond to evil events THE WAY THAT GOD TELLS US TO. And we have OVERWHELMING evidence that God wants human beings to combat evil and injustice when they see it. THAT's the bottom line. It doesn't matter WHERE the evil comes from. Yes, Jesus attributes evil to Satan and the Kingdom of Darkness, and that's cool. It's a legitimate, and the MAJOR source of the "evil". But again does that mean that

1) ALL instances of evil come from Satan in the warfare worldview? HECK, NO. and does it mean...

2) NO instances of "evil" can ultimately be ordained by God for HIS purposes? HECK, NO.

In short, what matters is NOT attempts to discern the ULTIMATE sources of particular evils, but to

1) Follow God's Spirit

2) Follow God in OBEDIENCE

This makes the other stuff kinda superfluous, right?

More stuff. Doc says:

quote:

---

If Jesus is our definitive final revelation of God, he must be our criterion for what God is like. We have to look at the world, and even the OT, through the lenses of Jesus, "If you see me, you see the Father" (Jn 14:8-10).

---

As you've probably guessed, Doc is very christocentric...which ain't all bad. HOWEVER, if that's the take we are going to have then we should look at ALL of Christ's speech, behavior, and self-awareness and see what this says. I've tried to argue that, for MANY rational people, some of Jesus' actions would NOT fit that of an "omnibenevolent" being by any stretch of the imagination. See, I have no problem with Jesus being the "definitive revelation" of God. What I DO have a problem with is people trying to make Jesus a whole nice NICER than he may have been. See what I mean?

Doc also said:

quote:

---

The pattern of Jesus ministry is uniformly against suffering (diseases, deformities, etc.) as caused by Satan. He demonstrated THE WILLOF GOD by reversing these things. ALL other things being equal, we should assume the same -- out of fidelty to Christ.

---

Demonstrating that God is about healing the brokenhearted, fighting for the little guy, and combating rampant evil is a FAR CRY from saying that the will of God EXCLUDES his being responsibly involved in what we call "evil" Think about it. Jesus indicates that he came FOREMOST to combat the devil, who is the arch-insurrectionist against God. And Satan's evil to the bone. No doubt about that. But does it NECESSARILY FOLLOW that ALL instances of evil do NOT fall within God's responsibility. HECK, NO, it doesn't. And think about this some more. If it really was Jesus' mission to ransack the Devil, doesn't it just plain make SENSE for Him to constantly speak about his primary foe? Of course, it does. It's the MAIN EVENT. Mano a mano. I think Doc takes his ideas on this a bit too far. But that's just me.

quote:

---

The OT situation was very different from the NT situation. God was dealing with nations in a way he 's not now. Now, he's forming a new international human race out of the "new Adam", JC (eph 2 -- one new humanity in christ).

---

I still have yet to hear a decent reason for the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira which had a STRONG resemblance to how God dealt with some OT folks (ie the guy who touched the ark of the covenant when David was bringing it back!) Hmmm...the OT and NT situations are different, but maybe not all THAT different.

Doc then says (with my emphases):

quote:

---

The "Problems with the OT" thread has nicely brought out that we perhaps can't say that God had NOTHING to do with catastrophies. The world is a complex place, especially when you consider the warfare in the heavenly realms. But, in my view at least, we can know the character of God regardless of how he is or is not involved. If he had to allow, or in any sense do more than allow, the world trade center catastrophies, it can only because it was the lesser of two or more evils that were possible.

---

See the psychological certainty? See the logical deduction from certain axiomatic premises? This is what I spoke about earlier. And it all seems reminiscent of the abused woman who keeps making rationalizations for why her "loving" husband keeps beating her. (at least that's what my atheistic friends keep telling me)

If you have not done so, I would do myself the favor of getting ALL of the books in Doc's theodicy trilogy and reading them in order. (God of War, God of the Possible, THEN Satan and the Problem of Evil) It really helps to get context for Doc's thought. It helped me.


Doc's my pal. He knows I love him. I just think his theology needs heavy tweakin' that's all. (He thinks the SAME THING about me. )

So what do you think, BJS? Holla back. and welcome again!



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - mephi2k on 12/17/2001 10:37:01 AM

quote:

---

(God at War, God of the Possible,<----not part of the series, not even the same publisher,although, a good read. THEN Satan and the Problem of Evil)

---

quote:

---

In short, what matters is NOT attempts to discern the ULTIMATE sources of particular evils, but to

1) Follow God's Spirit

2) Follow God in OBEDIENCE

This makes the other stuff kinda superfluous, right?

---

quote:

---

Now, I grant that perhaps Jesus' agenda was twofold: The first part was to battle satan, but the means He used was in directing mankind to the Father.
But the main focus of His work was the salvation of mankind, NOT to merely battle satan.

---

Doc would definitely disagree with you here. A major premise of "God at War" is that much of the soteriology of Christians today is FAR to anthropocentric. He would say that, though humans are affected significantly, the triumph of Christ is COSMIC rather than just anthropocentric. As a matter of fact, I think Doc would say that it makes more SENSE to explain human salvation in terms of the COSMIC victory of Christ than any other explanation. (Ain't I right about that, Doc?) With THIS particular idea of Doc's, I'm inclined to agree.

Again, really good to hear from you. Good stuff.



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

All right, Mephi. I appreciate your perspective. But I think a distinction needs to be made here between evil and "evil." I must believe, as Doc does, that God cannot be the author of real evil. As a good God, He cannot also be the source of evil. The tragedies that God has unfolded upon the earth in times past must ultimately be for the greater good, and not the greater evil. Agreed?

---

Some immediate questions come to mind:

1) When you say "real" evil, do you mean GRATUITOUS evil?

2) What is the "greater good"? Hmmm. WHOSE greater good is it? (hint: to truly answer this, one has to define "good" which will ULTIMATELY get us back to describing what an "omnibenevolent" being would entail)

I sharply disagree with you and Doc here. I don't hold that the Biblical view of God is philosophically "omnibenevolent" It becomes far too contrived and nonsensical, IMHO.

BJS said

quote:

---

However, because each of us lives in that shack on the beach at Normandy as war in the larger context rages around us, we are unable to effectively distinguish between real evil and seeming "evil." In other words, it is impossible for us to know whether the individual instances of suffering that surround us are the result of God's creatures rejecting His will (i.e., real evil) or merely God acting mysteriously in our best interest (seeming "evil"). [MEPH'S NOTE: Would someone give this GENIOUS of a man a cigar, please?!?! YAY! ] This is where I don't think Doc's position offers as much comfort and simplification as I originally thought it did. What is clear however, is that God is always acting in our best interest.

---

AHA! So you DO see what I see! The cash cow of the warfare worldview ala Doc is ultimately nothing more than PSYCHOLOGICAL CERTAINTY about God's feelings towards his creatures...and the existence of Heaven. THAT'S ALL. We then build a praxis around it (which turns out to be gloriously SIMPLE) and voila. The best thing since sliced bread. But I ask you...WHY is this necessary? Why is it that our relationship with God must be treated like the logical outcome of a syllogism and NOT a primal sense of faith in the goodness of God? Why must we make God's goodness some bedrock PHILOSOPHICAL axiom before we are able to trust God? This smacks of the SAME absurdity that languishes in evangelical circles over the issue of biblical inerrancy. It's sad.

Do you REALLY think this psychological certainty in God's "omnibenevolence" is THAT IMPORTANT to serving, loving, and trusting God? I don't.

Oh, by the way. Given my embolded section of your quote above, do you see why I say that IN THE END ANALYSIS, it's best to focus on our REACTIONS to evil rather than it's ultimate origin?


Gotta go. More later.


Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - mephi2k on 12/18/2001 08:04:06 AM

quote:

---

As to WHO killed Ananias and Sapphira, I have no problem myself stating that it was God Himself. Not Satan or an agent of Satan doing God's will. I believe God did to them what it says God did to Onan and his brother in Genesis 38: "And God killed them".

---

quote:

---

Why is it that our relationship with God must be treated like the logical outcome of a syllogism and NOT a primal sense of faith in the goodness of God? Why must we make God's goodness some bedrock PHILOSOPHICAL axiom before we are able to trust God?

---

quote:

---

When it comes to the death of Ananias and Sapphira, all God would have to do is remove his hand of protection which would make them a demonic free-for-all, or remove His Spirit from them. Can anything live without the Spirit of God? Either works.

---