See my comments below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>
To: "Don Perrett" <don.perrett@verizon.net>; "Asa@Calvin. Edu"
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Current Events
> >From: "Don Perrett" <don.perrett@verizon.net>
>
> > .... has anyone else wondered
> > why there have been so many recent earthquakes in the Afghan area since
we
> > went there? Is this an intervention by God?
>
> Questions like this one expose a very gruesome aspect of supernatural
> interventionism. It seems to me that the Afghan people have already had
more
> than their share of suffering and grief. What kind of God would intervene
to
> give them still more?
>
>
> Howard Van Till
Those of you who listened to NPR this morning heard a report from the
earthquake zone. A woman with five children was left with only one because
of the quake, and she had no food. A relative arrived to say that his
brother would have to have a leg amputated. The human shock, misery, and
grief was well conveyed in the report, as well as the efforts of governments
and private organizations to minister to the plight of these people.
The question, and Howard's response, with which I fully agree, brought
to mind John Polkinghorne's thoughts on the question of theodicy, which
turns Don's question inside out: "why does God not intervene to save people
from the sufferings brought on by natural disasters?" I think this is a
better way to look at the situation, rather than to frame it in the notion
that God intervenes by means of a natural disaster. Polkinghorne writes:
"An Oxford theologian, Austin Farrar, once asked himself what was God's
will in the Lisbon earthquake? This terrible disaster took place on All
Saints Day in 1755. The churches were full and they all collapsed, killing
50 thousand people. It was a most bitter example of natural evil. Farrar's
answer was hard but true. God's will was that the elements of the earth's
crust should behave in accordance with their nature. In other words, they
are allowed to be in their own way, just as we are allowed to be in ours."
Polkinghorne's "free process defense" of the world, which he ties to
human free will, does not remove the question of suffering, or its mystery.
"When mortal illness strikes a young mother, it is certainly not to be seen
as some horrible form of divine punishment, or a consequence of divine
indifference, but the tragedy of this situation is not removed simply by
noting that the possibility of cancer is the necessary price of the
evolution of new life. A profound problem remains, beyond the reach of
intellectual argument alone.
"One of my main reasons for being a Christian is that Christianity
speaks to the problem of suffering at the deepest possible level. The
Christian God is not just a compassionate spectator, looking down in pity on
the bitternes of the strange world that he has made. We believe that he has
been a fellow participant in the world's suffering, that he knows it from
the inside and does not just sympathize with it from the outside. This is
one of the meanings of the cross of Christ" (_Quarks, Chaos & Christianity_,
p. 46-48).
I believe, with Polkinghorne (and Bonhoeffer and others), that God
suffers with a suffering world--and grieves for its pain and loss. Perhaps
all would agree that what we can do for the quake victims in Afghanistan is
to offer our compassion and prayers, and support the efforts of government
and private aid organizations to relieve their suffering; and also support
aid and advice that provides them (and other peoples) with the means to make
their homes and other buldings safer and more resistant to natural
disasters.
Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 28 2002 - 10:01:40 EST