Thomas Weinandy, in his book Does God Suffer?, asks the crucial theological quesiton of our time. Setting up his case, he cites Gabriel Marcel on the difference between a logical problem and a mystery. Problems have answers. Figure out the answer, and you're on your way to something else. Mysteries, on the other hand, are inherently unsolvable. They suck you in by intrigue and depth, but, like that eerie west-coast hotel, you can never leave. You never find an "answer," but you keep wanting more.
On the relation between God, suffering and evil, Weinandy's appropriation of Marcel is dead-on. We're not talking MIT, but Hotel California. There is no logical answer to the so-called "problem of evil." Theists aren't alone in this. Atheists have the opposite problem: the "problem of good." Solve that with a formula.
Atheistic critics of Christian theism have noted the logical difficulty of holding three truths together which want to burst apart from tension: God is good, God is powerful, and evil exists. Why would a good and powerful God allow evil and suffering in the world he created? The problem seems particularly profound, Weinandy points out, for the modern consciousness, which has seen the images of Auschwitz and Dachau. Where was God when millions were shoved helpless into gas chambers? Moltmann's answer: He was there in their suffering. Much of modern theology agrees with Dietrich Bonhoeffer that, "only a suffering God can help." In other words, the emotionally unaffected, or "impassible" God of classical theism (yes, that concept of God which dominated the theological landscape for at least 1500 years), offers no religious benefit for a world in which suffering and evil is a major theme of their most recent history.
The question Weinandy raises, in contrast to the now-prevailing theological consensus regarding the passibility of God, is whether a suffering God can help. His critique is that those encountering evil are not helped by a suffering God, but rather by one who is unaffected by evil and yet comforts the afflicted in the midst of their pain.
I plan to finish Weinandy's book and to post again on this central question. Does God suffer? and, Does a suffering God help? My initial hunch is that the new consensus regarding the passibility of God is based on a correct intuition. For too long, classical theology has been unable to provide a satisfactory link between God as he exists in himself and God as he exists in our midst. In other words, when the Bible seems to suggest that God has some kind of feeling and emotion in reaction to human beings and events of human history, must we simply chalk that up to "anthropomorphism," and say that God "essence" remains unaffected? What sense does "essence" even mean at that point? And then, of course, we have that awkward little blip in God's history called the incarnation. Didn't God suffer there...or was that just the human Jesus?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Dear Professor Robert's
I discovered your blog this morning through one of my google alerts which was set on "Gabriel Marcel" I wish you well on your blogging experience. I would now like to throw a few thoughts out there. It seems to me that if GOD is MYSTERY and forever beyond any type of total comprehension by the mind of man, then all Being which arises out of nothingness must also at bottom be mystery. Mystery is not that which man's mind cannot grasp at any level but only that which can never be fully grasped, which must include all Reality. GOD/LOVE is the Creator of all that exist.There can be no doubt that Love is the most Creative Force in the Universe or even more to the point, Love is the only Creative Force in the Universe when "Create" is understood in it's deepest sense. " All Creation Is God's Love In Action."
But GOD had a problem. After GOD had created the Universe, He was ready to create Beings in His own Image and Likeness for whom the Universe was created. GOD'S problem was that Love and Freewill cannot be separated. Love without Freewill is rationally unthinkable. Man without Freewill to choose Freedom or Slavery would cease to be man. Man's Freewill however is not the problem. Man's existential problem is the False Identity that he comes to accept as his true self without ever giving it much thought.
jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack,
You have the distinction of being the first to comment on my blog. A momentous occasion :)
"Mystery is not that which man's mind cannot grasp...but only that which can never be fully grasped."
Absolutely. Mystery is like metaphor. Meaning is accessible, but is dynamic and open...there is always new meaning to be found.
Kyle,
Finally at the tender young age of sixty I have arrived at being first at something. I think that being the first to comment on your blog is a good way to start my run for the guiness record! I thought you might be interested in checking this blog out by Bill Vallicella which is pretty good.
http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/
jack
Kyle
I would like to offer you the dubious honor of being the first commenter on my new blog. If you accept, I only ask that you feel completely free in questioning any part of the blog whenever you see something that needs to be clarified or corrected. I have always believed that a open and honest dialog between person's seeking the truth is the surest path to understanding . It is a notorious fact that disagreements between minds can often be traced back to the many different meanings of words used alone or in conjunction with other words.
http://godquestionsman.blogspot.com/
jack
I, too, found your blog through your reference to Gabriel Marcel, a personal favorite of mine. I wish you the best in your blogging experience. (From a fellow Minnesotan).
A few days ago I dove into another of Rabbi Herschel's books, The Prophets, and, in a non-explicit way, he addresses the issue of the suffering God. He believes that the way the various prophets communicated - through their passion, grief, and anger - was more than just a communication of God's message, it was His "personality" and "voice" reflected in them.
If we follow with Herschel's assertions, we must believe that God does indeed suffer, for and with us. I'll paraphrase what Kazantzakis said in The Fratricides, "Do you think Christ is sitting in heaven, watching down on us? No! He is here, sweating, in the dust next to us."
Tom,
Excellent point. I've not read Heschel's book. But yes, if we accept his assertion then, indeed, God is suffering with us. The question remains, do we (I) accept his assertion? Weinandy's point is that such a view of God might exclude God's "otherness" in favor of his closeness. I'm beginning to wonder if Weinandy might be right, that God can be most comforting to us when he is also other than us...any thoughts?
Kyle
The most direct way for us to approach the question of whether GOD is a suffering GOD is from our position as human being. Although we know that no man but One ever completely conformed to the image and likeness of GOD,still it is hard to believe that fallen man is so different from GOD that man because of his love for others must sometimes endure great suffering but GOD does not. Although Jesus endured extreme suffering physically in his body, I believe there can be no doubt that his greatest suffering was of the Heart. There can be only one reason why the FATHER sent his only begotten Son to our world to be so mistreated by man and that reason is His Love for us .To Love in a perfect universe would exclude suffering but in a imperfect universe suffering cannot be avoided.Is it even possible to wrap our mind around a Love that is incapable of experiencing a suffering of the Heart under any circumstances. Could not a close reading of the New Testament reveal many hints pointing to a GOD who suffers?
jack
It is hard to get around the language of the Bible in the suggestion that God is passible –he was grieved, angered, etc. in response to human action. But perhaps this language is simply a human attempt at expressing the impact of encountering God’s constancy? There is the argument that when the Bible says God was angered, it does not mean that he became angry, and therefore experienced a change of emotion. But that instead in his unchanging nature, he would always be angry at such an act, and we simply see various facets of God depending on how the wildly inconsistent human nature bumps up against Him. This leads me to the question of prayer. If God is impassible, unchanging and omniscient, what are we doing when we pray? Prayer can be a kind of pleading with God, to sympathize and suffer with us so that He intercedes with healing or rescue. But if he does not suffer, is prayer for changing us, as C.S. Lewis said, rather than trying to change God’s mind?
Kyle
I am having difficulty in getting my mind around the problem of evil and suffering as it is related to GOD. Would it be possible for you to state the nature of the problem in such a way that an ordinary man such as I could grasp it.
jack
Jack,
Thanks for your question. It's a good one, so rather than trying to do that in one of these little responses, I think I shall make it my next post.
Kyle, I thought you might like to check the "STILL POINT BLOG" out. They have two posts going on the question of "GOD and EVIL"
http://hugesponge.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z&max-results=21
Post a Comment