Coal Mine Tragedy and God

Below is a question asked by a nonbeliever on another list, followed by
my answer, FYI.
***********************************************************************
Subject: Coal Mine Tragedy & God

Last night, I was flipping in-between the college football game and CNN
to
watch the situation in West Virginia with the coal mine, right at the
time the
information about the miners being alive was going around.

Like everyone else who was watching at that time, I was happy for the
families. However, I also felt a bit disturbed by the fact that only
one
ambulence came out and that the reporters (and not just the families)
where
making a big deal about God's hand in this "miracle". Apparently, I
went to
bed just before word broke that everyone had, unfortunately, been
misinformed.

This is a terrible tragedy, and I now read on CNN.com that some folks
are
questioning God which is, apparently making their suffering worse.
(Some
folks also tried to physically harm the mining company officials who
gave
them the bad news, which is regrettable.)

Why do people have to believe in a God that has to be active in every
little
detail of their lives, and why do they continue to believe that way when
there
is so much senseless cruelty in the world to fellow believers?

Why does the news media capitulate to the believers and act like God
really
did intervene for those three hours, last night, and can intervene when
requested?

I don't mean to diminish the tragedy, I'm just trying to understand the
behavior, not being in the position those unfortunate people are.

Thanks.

(Name witheld)
 
******************************************************************
(Name witheld) asked:

Why do people have to believe in a God that has to be active in every
little
detail of their lives, and why do they continue to believe that way when
there
is so much senseless cruelty in the world to fellow believers?
 
Good question. Austin Farrer parodied such faith in his book Faith and
Speculation (1967):
 
"Mr. Jones' rheumatism was a judgement, until his daughter swore to you
on the bible that the tale of his secret drinking was a baseless
slander. Her father was a saint. His rheumatism was, therefore, a
trial. But then the bowling club went on a day's outing and drove their
charabanc into the sea; and Mr. Jones' rheumatism, since it kept him
home on the occasion, proved a blessing in disguise, and a providence
indeed." (p. 68)
 
I. T. Ramsey wrote in Models for Divine Activity (1973) that if two men
in a covered wagon are attacked by Native Americans and one survives
while the other is killed, "If the man in the covered wagon speaks
genuinely of a special providence of God, his discourse about God must
also incorporate the death of his friend." (p. 22)
 
Nothing profound or new here - I'm just agreeing that (Name witheld)
asks a good question - and I find that most competent theologians do
too.
 
If God declines to intervene and save people from human ignorance or
malice or natural disasters, when doing so would seem to provide
evidence of his existence and power as well as his care and love, then
why believe in God?
 
First, I think it's worth imagining what a wierd world this would be if
God did swoop in an intervene whenever natural or human-initiated causal
chains would otherwise lead to innocent suffering. John Polkinghorne
and others discuss this enough for me to accept that if there is a
loving God, maybe there are good reasons for such a God not to intervene
like that. Polkinghorne adds (in Science and Providence, 1989):
 
"God accords to the processes of the world the same respect that he
accords to the actions of humanity. That is why, when we attempted to
speak of providence and of miracle, we sought to do so in a way that
fully protected cosmic integrity" (p. 67)
 
But still the question remains, without better evidence for a God of
some significance, why believe in God? Polkinghorne continues:
 
"It remains a question whether the God we are describing is not
nevertheless in the end so evacuated of power that he becomes little
more than the colluder with cosmic process. John Lucas describes the
danger: 'God's plans, it seems, are either vacuous' (he goes along with
whatever happens) 'or else the victim of every bloody minded man [coal
mine owners who aren't careful enough and thus risk their miners'
safety, perhaps?], and ineffective.' Faced with the dilemma of either a
God who withdraws the gift of freedom or a God who is frustrated by the
gift of freedom, Lucas opts for the latter as 'the cross on which God
has chosen to be impaled ... It is a corollary of caring; that one
should be vulnerable, and a God who cares infinitely will be infinitely
vulnerable.'" (p. 68)
 
I'm just sharing one theistic point of view. In no way am I trying to
start an argument, or even deny the force of the question (Name witheld)
asked. Certainly the problem of innocent suffering is a major challenge
to any belief in God. In fact, I think it's a much more significant
challenge than is Darwinian evolution. I respect those who (like Name
witheld) cannot believe in God in part because of innocent suffering.
 
I can only respond that for me and perhaps other Christians, Christ's
suffering unto death has great meaning. Without it, I don't know if I
could ever seriously consider believing in God either. I think the
concept of meaningful suffering is important in the Jewish tradition
too, and perhaps in other religious traditions.
 
My apologies if my answer to (Name witheld)'s question was not
appropriate for this list.
 
Best wishes, and thanks for reading.
 
Chuck
 
Received on Wed Jan 4 19:43:32 2006