If God is NOT in Suffering

Let us think on the entailment of Godlessness in human suffering. What are my legitimate options if I am unable to believe in God during times of suffering? I use the word ‘unable’ to emphasize the overwhelming pain of the suffering heart. We should positively sympathize with those struggling to decrypt God’s presence in times of (arduous) suffering. Those who succumb to the incredible pain caused by their suffering, deny God’s existence.

            If man replaces God, then suffering is caused by mankind. Poverty, I postulate, is an imbalance in the distribution of financial resources, due to greed. The haves turn a blind eye to the have-nots. The poor shrink and the rich bloat. This is a tenable proposition. Again, if starvation is an outcome of the barrenness of land due to lack of rain, then one can posit concretization (building of concrete jungles) through deforestation as a plausible cause. This too is tenable.

            Man ought to be the cause behind a baby with birth defects due to parental negligence or an untimely death because of a drunken driver. These evils could be attributed to him exercising his freewill. But what is he free from? If someone is “free,” then we posit a restraining power. A young man may want freedom from his parent or a slave may want freedom from his oppressor. The parent and the oppressor are the restraining powers.

What do these powers restrain a man from? Parents restrain a child from being bad (which is good). An oppressor restrains the slave from escaping (which is bad). Hence, the restraints could be either good or bad. Man can choose to be free from either good or bad. Thus, a “free” man can liberate himself from good or bad.

            The moment we bring concepts such as ‘bad’ and ‘good’ (morality) into our domain, we should explain its cause. Who framed these moral laws? Since our postulation is Godlessness, society (man) frames its own moral laws. But one society executes convicts for armed robbery, whereas another imposes a lesser punishment. We need to decide which of these societies is right or wrong.

So we arrive at the realm of arbitration. A society sets up objective units to arbitrate opposing contentions. These objective units determine the innocent, the criminal, the winners, and the losers. Even in villages (where literacy is rare), a village council comprising of mature and credible people is established as an objective arbitrative unit. When man seeks justice/truth, he approaches the objective authority, whose sole purpose is to establish truth through impartial justice.

            This objective arbitrative unit ought to be a transcending authority. Primarily, it should transcend the contending parties, without sympathizing with either. But man is a vulnerable being. So the transcending authority need not be absolutely transcending, for it could fail to transcend corruption.

            When a man depends on his fellow being for justice, especially with the prevailing corruption, one can reasonably posit that justice need not be rendered to every individual. Justice often marries power, position, and prominence, leaving the poor and powerless divorced from justice.

Here the aspect of “Hope” needs to be considered if mankind is robbed of justice from fellow man. When one is at the receiving end of injustice, should he live with hope to receive justice one day, or should he be hopeless? When a man fails to receive justice, what is his assurance to receive justice later? When corruption is in full force, justice from a fellow man is not an optimistic anticipation, especially if he is poor and powerless. When man replaces God, hopelessness prevails.

            With man at the helm of affairs, justice and hope are uncertain. With God at the helm of affairs, there is justice and hope. This hope is an eternal hope where evil will be punished and righteous will be saved to coexist with God unto eternity (Revelation 20ff). If the Lord so ordains that I do not receive justice in this time and age (Cf. Hebrews11:35b-40), I am certain of receiving justice when HE comes in all HIS glory to judge mankind.

           

            Until now we hypothetically removed God from the helm and replaced HIM with man. Then we examined the situation to ascertain if man’s replacement of God answers questions related to suffering. The situation of suffering with man at the helm is worse. If I depend on man, then I am hopeless and robbed of justice. Hopelessness with man also posits that man is not “free” but is under the control of evil.

            There is a sense of duplicity in those who reject God (a transcending, objective, Almighty reality) but accept the presence of objective arbitrative units of men. On one hand, they reject God because of HIS supposed partiality (HE provides good to some and not to all), and impotency (HE fails to eliminate evil), but on the other hand they accept a man who is worse than God – partial, impotent, and susceptible to corruption. Those who are disappointed in God should also be disappointed with man (even with themselves!). Significantly, there is hope with God but only hopelessness with man.

            If we replace God with anything inanimate (chance), then the situation gets even worse. We are left with more holes and questions – the situation becomes more unstable and untenable. If God is at the helm, then God decides the birth of every man. If man rejects God, then his birth is a chance occurrence. When ‘chance’ rapes a man, he is abandoned into brutal obscurity, humiliation and indignity that he remains idiotically ignorant of the cause for his malady. This is a situation of greater hopelessness and indignity. This is a horrendous evil.

            It has already been emphasized that man can decide to liberate himself from good or bad. We have the intrinsic freedom to liberate ourselves from God or the devil. When we liberate from God, we fall prey (even innocently and ignorantly) to the schemes of the devil. A deluded man falls prey to the devil’s schemes. God gives man many chances to seek HIM, love HIM, and obey HIM willingly and lovingly. It is my prayer that we do not fall into the hands of the evil one, but willingly and lovingly fall into the loving and nail pierced hands of the Almighty God.

            Christ in us is the hope of glory (Colossians 1:27). Without Christ, we are hopeless. I therefore submit that suffering is more understandable and explainable with God. Amen.

Summary:

If man replaces God:

            Suffering caused by ‘man’ or ‘chance’

                       

If suffering caused by man, then Man is “free.”

                                    A ‘free’ man can liberate himself from ‘good’ or ‘evil’ (morality).

Man frames moral laws to establish justice/good (since God is replaced by man).

Man arbitrates/judges to ensure fairness/good (man sets up objective authority akin God)

Arbitration should absolutely transcend, but does not, for man is vulnerable (corrupt). So, man is unable to liberate himself from evil.

                       

Justice unrendered to man, since man unable to liberate himself from evil.

When justice is unrendered, man is HOPELESS, evil prevails, ‘good’ is nonexistent/partial.

Because justice and hope are consistently non-existent/partial, man is not ‘free,’ but is under the control of evil.

Therefore, when man rejects God, he is under the control   of evil.

                        If suffering is a ‘chance’ occurrence

           

Man is so hopeless that he cannot seek anyone or anything for answers. Man is robbed of dignity completely.

This is a horrendous evil, so evil prevails.

                       

If man replaces God, evil prevails, man is under the control of evil.

                       

Fallacies:

Man sets up an objective authority to establish justice/good, but rejects a good and a just God who is an objective authority. (Man does not want to yield control to God.)

Because of corruption/evil, man fails to provide justice consistently. (But he rejected God for the same reason - not providing justice consistently.)

Justice in Suffering

As a mother walks on the sidewalk with her baby in a stroller, a drunken taxi driver ploughs into them; the baby dies instantly. A pregnant mother tried her best to curb her chain-smoking, but failed; her child is born with birth defects.

Some are born into a wealthy home with a silver spoon; they enjoy their abundance. Some in an average middle class home struggle to receive what they need - even a modern day essential such as an unlimited talk time on cell phone. Others are born in slums and their struggles are for a mere cup of tea and a slice of bread. 

How is a child born in a slum less deserving of the mortal pleasures? How would a child born to a chain-smoking mother deserve a life time of disability?

We have absolutely no control over the place, health, and wealth of our birth. The sovereign God authors the script; we are the reluctant actors. Are we mere dominoes that fall when knocked down? God gives as HE wills. So am I to merely accept and try to live my best? “Life sucks; I am a mere puppet in the hands of a cruel God,” so we scream. The scream seems legit! 

God decides that some be born in wealth and some in dirt. After such a birth, what is God’s plan to make a life good? Bible says that in all things God works for the good of those who love HIM (Romans 8:28, NIV). Do these sound good - defective births, untimely death, and birth in a slum? Or should we rethink our definition of good? If we are born into a healthy and wealthy home, then God is good. If not, do we rethink God?

How does God decide our place of birth? God is a God of Justice (Deuteronomy 32:4; Revelation 16:5 et al.). We believe a ‘Just’ God should not relegate humans into slums or sickness. If a baby is born in a slum or with sickness, we sense a denial of justice. So, we view God as a source of happiness. In other words, if I am happy, then God is just. If I am unhappy, is God unjust?

Happiness is a relative term. The poor may be satisfied to receive a slice of bread and a cup of tea. A meager quantity such as this would not satisfy a person belonging to the middle-class or rich. (Please allow me to switch tracks.) If God in HIS justice provides the middle-class and rich with just a hut to live, they would not be happy (unless we find a middle-class or rich human living in a hut). Hence, God’s justice need not necessarily result in human happiness, even if HE intends it to be.

Without sickness there is no healing, without adversity no miracle. God’s glory is powerfully evident during adversities (miracles of Christ). A healthy life causes happiness, and sickness triggers sadness. Even if healing is not taken into consideration, the sick are happy to receive good medical care and financial support. Joyful testimonies of people having received such benefits during their sickness are an affirmation. In this instance, the justice of God brings happiness to a suffering soul. In some cases, people grieve in their sickness despite receiving good medical care and financial support. Situation remains status quo – happiness need not result from God’s justice, although God does provide a way out of suffering.

Ever wondered why the disciples of the Lord - Andrew, Philip, Nathanael (Bartholomew), Simon the Zealot, Thaddaeus-Judas, and the late entrant Matthias were not given prominence in the Bible, yet each one died a martyr’s death? If they had received their prominence, then their martyrdom could seem justifiable. The Bible does not teach that prominence, popularity, and power are the only destinations for the Lord’s disciples. Instead, the Lord’s disciples are to be obedient to the Lord, and accept what God in HIS justice offers to them. Happiness is never found in prosperity, but in obedience to God, in doing HIS perfect and pleasing will.

In a nutshell, God’s justice cannot be understood from man’s perspective. Our perspective mutates circumstantially. But, God gives to man everything what each thing requires to be the kind of thing it is (distributive justice).¹

In God there is no injustice (2 Chronicles 19:7), so God cannot offer cruel things. What God gives is good, but our understanding of good needs to be redefined. (Please allow me to use ‘justice’ and ‘good’ interchangeably.) It is unjust (‘not good’) that someone be killed, but it is justice (‘good’) when a soldier dies for the sake of his country. ‘Good’ needs to be comprehended from a greater perspective (in this case - community). Thus, justice should also be seen from a greater perspective (community), not just from a personal perspective. 

We are a long way off the Garden of Eden - intended as a place of equality and rest. Sin and evil blessed us with societal strata. For instance, doctor’s and sanitation workers are essential to our existence, but their characteristics are poles apart. Without doctors we may die early, and without sanitation workers we would live in miserable stench. (Only those who bear stench can remove garbage.) The complexity of our world demands people in all societal strata. Doctors and sanitation workers are necessities. Hence, God gives to man everything that he needs to be as God wants him to be. (We will not address the existential dilemma of doctors being content, and sanitation workers demanding status i.e. to be doctors).

Our society is constructed such that some ought to be placed higher or lower. So, God in HIS justice decides the birth. But HE has also given much to the middle-class and wealthy with an intent that they would take care of the poor and lowly. It is the failure of these sections of the society that we still have the underprivileged. How many times have we seen a sanitation worker and given him food or a drink? After all, he keeps our precincts clean! If we have much, and fail to take care of our neighbor in need, then we are to be blamed, not God (Cf. Luke 12:48; Matthew 25:34-46). God has not failed in being just; we are failing in our responsibility. God’s people are to serve to alleviate pain and poverty, for we are the body of Christ. We cannot ignore our neighbor in pain.

Suffering is an outcome of sin and evil. But the suffering soul ought to remove his focus from self and look to God for HIS omnipresent grace and strength. God ensures justice by always satisfying a suffering soul (Psalm41:3; Isaiah 53:5; Malachi 4:2; Luke 9:11). Hence, we must trust God. HE alone provides us with sustenance. The unhealthy or poor should trust HIM even more.

We celebrated “Good Friday” – the Lord’s suffering. Even though we shudder at the extent of suffering the Lord bore, we are glad for that suffering brought salvation to mankind. Thus God established justice from suffering. One’s suffering brought mankind much good. Similarly, God will bring good even from one man’s suffering.

Hence, I believe that there is justice in suffering. Amen. 

Reference:

¹Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Question 21, Article 1.

Hell In The Presence Of A Loving God

            One of the most difficult questions for me to answer is, “Why God has put me in a predicament of having to see my loved ones in hell because of their unbelief in Christ?” This is an honest question of any Christian whose friends or relatives are yet to believe in Christ. A variant of this question is “why would God not reveal Himself in a way that people believe in Christ?” The ball seems to be in God’s court!

            When asked why he remained an atheist, Bertrand Russell claimed God did not give him adequate evidence to be a theist. Is this a fact? Has God not given adequate evidence to many? The Holy Bible refutes this claim by emphasizing that men suppress truth, which God has made plain to all (Romans 1:19-20; Cf John 3:16-21). The Bible unapologetically places the ball in man’s court!

            To grasp and accept the concept of hell is indeed difficult. How often do we read or view news related to brokenness and death to feel miserable and nauseated? Are we not immeasurably broken when someone close to us is ill or when our loved one dies? We so love our near and dear that we do not want to see them hurt in any way. This is possibly one of the many reasons why we find the concept of hell difficult to digest, and sometimes we even refuse to accept its reality. We so LOVE our friends and relatives that we do not want any harm upon them. 

            If we cannot bear to see our loved ones suffer now for a certain period of time, then it is legitimate for us to suffer more while imagining the possibility of them suffering in hell unto eternity. At the core of our pain is our deep love for our near and dear. Our love and concern for our loved ones’ eternal destiny seems legitimate! However, the dilemma begins now.

            Our dilemma is to comprehend the painful reality of hell under the overarching umbrella of God’s love. We believe a loving God would not send HIS children, even under the pretext of unbelief, to eternal torment. How would a loving parent gift his child with prolonged suffering? Would the parent not do all within his means to prevent this horrendous occurrence? This is our painful dilemma. In other words, we question the credibility of God’s love with respect to hell.

            True love respects and educates, but never enslaves. A parent who truly loves his child will educate him of good and evil. A parent will do “everything” within his power and will to stop the child from pursuing evil, but that “everything” excludes enslaving his child. If a child is bent on pursuing the path of evil, the parent will choose preventive actions, but will never imprison the child into solitary confinement. The circumstantially handicapped parent may opt to allow the child to have his way; this is the respect the parent shows to the disobedient child’s cognizant volition. A defeated and emotionally fatigued parent will allow the child to continue in willful disobedience. Nevertheless, the parents’ love for the child will never diminish even if the child willfully rebels to disobey.

            The father of the prodigal son not only heeds to the property share request of the son, but he goes a step further by not preventing his son from departing to a distant country with his share of wealth (Luke 15:12-13). The son willfully disobeys the loving father, and departs. The loving father expectantly longs for his son’s return and when he does return, the father rushes to welcome the son even before he repents. This is father’s love. A parent’s love will never cease and always hope for the best, but at the same time, a parent’s love will respect the child’s conscious decision. 

            Was it not C.S Lewis who opined that there are two groups of people in this world of which one group would acknowledge and believe in Christ, bend their knees to HIM and say ‘Your will be done,’ and God would have this group living with HIM unto eternity (in heaven). To the other group who refuse to acknowledge and believe in Christ and bend their knees to God, HE will say ‘your will be done’ and grant them their wish to be away from HIM (in hell). God keeps those who desire to be with HIM, but respects and allows those who reject HIM to be away from HIM. This is true love – a love that provides all, but refuses to enslave. (Please remember the Bible’s proclamation that God has given mankind enough evidence to believe in HIM.)

            Let’s travel back to the creation account in Genesis. God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of it (Genesis 2:9, 16-17). Even though it was a command, Adam and Eve were given the freedom to accept or reject God’s command. Thus God exhibited true love, and HE desires mankind to love HIM. True love can only exist in the conscious reality of freedom. Freedom to accept or reject the lover is intrinsic in true love. Therefore, God’s love for mankind warrants the presence of heaven and hell.

            God’s justice can also be questioned with respect to hell. How can a just God eternally punish HIS children for the sin of unbelief committed during the specific period of time of their existence in this world? Isn’t the eternal punishment disproportionate to the sin committed in time? This is another painful predicament we struggle with.

            Human life was designed to be with God unto eternity through mutual love. Sin separated man and God. God, in HIS foreknowledge, designed a way out of this predicament through the one time sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. HE has also done everything for mankind to believe in HIM, so mankind will be without excuse against God. When man refuses to believe in Christ and thereby rejects God, God simply allows man to be away from HIM unto eternity. In other words, the creational intent is an eternal fellowship with God or an eternal banishment from God. Mankind makes the choice, and God honors that choice. This is Justice. Therefore, God’s justice warrants heaven and hell.

P.S: One can always argue that God in HIS perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, could have created a better world where none go to hell. But eminent philosophers have debated the concept of the “best of all possible worlds,” so if you are interested in indulging in heavy reading, then please visit these links and dig deep thereafter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free_will_defense).