Consider the following scenario:
A young woman is preparing a meal for her husband and 4 year old son. Something distracts her, and she walks away from the kitchen, leaving the uncooked hamburger meat and 4 year old boy unattended. Overcome with curiosity, the boy takes a small piece of the pink, appetizing goo. Within three hours of consuming the raw, e-coli infested meat the boy dies. The family is overwhelmed by tragedy.
An atheist has recently presented this as a case-study example of the problem of evil. He tried to demonstrate that surely a good god, especially the God described by most Christians, would not let this kind of tragedy happen. However, the tragedy did happen, so therefore the God described by Christians - a good, loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God - must not exist. Surely a god that is capable of stopping such a tragedy would be morally obligated to do so, yes?
This is a powerful argument, requiring serious consideration. If God would indeed be morally obligated to prevent human suffering, especially the kind described by the scenario above, then, having allowed such tragedies to occur, either God does not exist or God is malicious.
Is God morally obligated to prevent human suffering? To answer this question the terms must first be defined. In what sense should "moral obligation" be understood? What about "human suffering"?
My impression is "human suffering" is generally understood, in this context at least, to refer to a human getting what s/he doesn't deserve (or not getting what s/he does deserve). Therefore, when most people suggest that God is morally obligated to prevent human suffering, what is generally meant is that a just god would see to it that every human gets exactly what s/he deserves. Therefore, because God is morally obligated to do what a just god would do, he is obligated to see to it that all humans get exactly what they deserve.
So, rephrasing our question, is God morally obligated to see to it that all humans get exactly what they deserve? On this point I must agree with the atheist. Yes, God has an obligation to ensure that life is fair and that all people get exactly what they deserve.
You may ask, "How can you believe that and still be a Christian?" This is a fair question. Indeed, on first look it seems like there are all sorts of things happening all around the world that just aren't fair. Surely the family in the story did not deserve the tragedy that happened to them, much less did the little boy deserve to die! However, when I read the Bible I get a different story. If, indeed, everyone is a sinner, born with sin (Romans 3:23), and the just penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23), then the death of an individual - anyone, no matter the age - is the outworking of perfect justice. Moreover, if a person does indeed deserve to "reap what you sow," then all human suffering is deserved insofar as all human suffering is the outworking of human choices and human sin.
"Well, doesn't God still have an obligation to alleviate human suffering?!" you may respond. However, the answer is no. God does alleviate suffering, but that is called grace and mercy. By definition if God is obligated to be graceful and merciful then it is not grace and mercy at all. Grace is a gift that is undeserved, and mercy is withholding a punishment that is deserved. If God is obligated to be fair, how can He also be obligated to be unfair - granting grace and mercy? The answer: God is not obligated to give grace or mercy to anyone.
Then how does God justly apply grace and mercy to sinners that deserve death? The death of Jesus Christ provided the necessary substitutionary sacrifice, making grace and mercy available to anyone that would be willing to accept Christ as Savior and Lord.
Christianity paints a coherent picture of human suffering and justice. Thankfully, it also provides a coherent portrait of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Does your worldview have a coherent understanding of suffering, justice, and salvation?
No comments:
Post a Comment