Love Theology
Research Essay –
Does a Loving God Exist?
Introduction
Too often people believe that life is like an epic tale similar to The
Lord of the Rings where forces of good are struggling to overcome the
forces of evil.[1] This idea is projected into the Gospel story
where God is struggling to overcome His archenemy the Devil. God verses the Devil; two powerful forces
locked in an eternal battle with human beings stuck in the middle like
collateral damage or cannon fodder. To
make matters even worse; God Himself created the Devil and in this act
conspired against humankind by being the ultimate source of evil. In this story, evil is created by God and
therefore, He is the creator of all the suffering in the world.The story
becomes more depressing when the so-called ‘God of Love’ then judges the world
of its evilness and condemns anyone found in sin to eternal death in Hell.
This narrative reads like an epic Hindu tale such as the Ramayana. In the Ramayana, there are three forces
struggling for supremacy. The demonic
under world, upper world of gods and the middle world of humankind. A demonic warlord has found a way to claim
earth as his own and the gods are not helping the humans to defend
themselves. It is the narrative of many
religious stories; Zeus, Odin, Maui, all to some extend have similar
themes. It makes sense that humankind
perceives the Biblical narrative to be the same. It is a humanistic interpretation. God has all
power but does nothing but judge humankind for their failures.
This essay will answer the question does a loving God exist? It will
demonstrate that a loving God does exist, and the evidence is in the revelation
of God made through Jesus and his providence work on the cross. The problem of
evil, the main argument against a loving God, will be addressed. The response to the problem of evil is not
found in an academic rebuttal but in the loving community of Christians that
work to overcome evil and care for those affected by it. The witness of Israel and the Church toward
God will be explored. Finally, the viewpoints
of atheists, agnostics and pantheists with regards to the existence of a loving
God in the presence of evil will be reviewed.
Discussion
The
Problem of Evil
How can a loving all-powerful God allow evil in the Earth? The fact of evil proves that God is either
not loving, not all powerful or does not exist.[2]If
God is loving and there is evil in His creation it creates a logical
inconsistency.[3]As an
atheist, C. S. Lewis described this question as the reason for his unbelief in
God.[4] The problem of evil is the mantra of atheists
as they seek to deny the existence of God.
Hegel, Nietzsche,[5]
Sagan and Dawkins[6] all expound
the problem of evil in one form or another to gather support for their position
that ‘God is dead’[7] or the
object of delusional thinking.[8] Theodicy, made from two Greek words meaning
god and justice, is the theological word used to describe the defence of the
justice and righteousness of God in a reality where evil exists within His
creation.[9]Theodicy
is an academic response to the problem of evil.
Even before atheism was popular, Christians found the problem of evil to
be difficult to defend. The church fathers and theologians expounded many views
to try to defend the problem of evil and a loving God.[10] The popular defence for God is that true love
must contain freewill and that evil was a product of Adam’s rejection of God.[11] However, the answers are not sufficient to
cover the emotions surrounding a tragedy such as the death of a child.[12] The insufficiency of the Christian response
to the evil of such a tragedy has rendered their faith unintelligible to the
glee of those who accuse God of evil and argue for his non-existence.[13] However, the issue is that what seems a
simple question has no simple answer.[14] More importantly, the answers given by both
sides of the debate come from two totally different spirits of inquiry; one
seeking to prove his non-existence the other seeking to prove he is all loving
and all powerful.[15]
Rayment-Pickard describes five common responses to the problem of evil;
the tragic response, the trusting response, the dualistic response, the
non-existence of evil response and the moral response. The tragic response is wherethe reality of
evil leads us to reject the existence of a loving God. The trusting response is where there is no
place to question God who is loving and just have faith that all things will
work out for good. Hick describes this as monism.[16]
The dualistic response is to say that good and evil are locked in some sort of
cosmic battle and one must eventually overcome the other.[17]Zoroastrianism
is an example of a dualistic religion having two creators; one good and one
evil.[18]
The non-existence of evil response is as both Augustus and Aquinas argued; that
evil was simply the absence of good.
Christian Science has taken on this view that evil does not exist; it is
only an illusion.[19] The moral response is the classic Christian
position whereby evil is the outcome of freewill; it was Adam’s choice that
caused him to sin and sever his relationship with God. God did not make evil; Adam chose it. This view, although common in Christianity,
is also incompatible with the image of a God who is loving.[20]
If God is loving, then how can we explain the problem of evil? Hick suggests to really answer the academic
side of this question then we must lay the agony and pain of evil to the side.[21] If evil is nothing more than academic
question then the sensible responses involve the common arguments of freewill,
human choice and sin.However, the question is not really academic, it requires
a more practical response. Hauerwas
calls it a practical challenge (not problem) that needs a response.[22] The Biblical response is community.[23] Surin, in Hauerwas, goes further to say that;
“In proper Christian context, conversion is inseparable from fellowship, a
fellowship which is at the root a fellowship with the Trinity itself.”[24]
Danaher, who disagrees with Hick’s academic responses, describes this community
as one that is full of compassion and forgiveness.[25]
Christians follow the model set by God; Jesus revealed that true sovereignty is
based on forgiveness[26]
and love.[27]
To address the pain and agony of evil the Holy Spirit has been given; as
Jesus says to a suffering Paul; “My grace is sufficient for you.” The underlying issue is that humans, filled
with the Holy Spirit, are supposed to be God’s answer to the problem of evil on
earth but because of sin humans have taken the stance of the victim instead of
overcomer.[28] In Jesus, we have been restored to the being
the solution.[29] This is wonderfully portrayed in the film by
Sharon Irving called A Thousand Questions.[30]
The
Witness of Israel
The witness of Israel for God is often misinterpreted as an argument for
a judgemental, wrathful and vengeful God.
Even theologians have fallen into heresies trying to defend the way that
God acts in the Old Testament.[31] Christians have often complained that the God
in the Old Testament is a God of judgement, wrath and vengeance while in the
New Testament he is a God of love.[32] The God in the Old and New Testament is the
same God. Kaiser demonstrates that the
difference might be more perceived than real.[33] He explains that God shows his love in the
Old Testament when he chose Israel not because they were deserving but out of
love.[34]He
goes on to point out that in the New Testament there is judgement. Barrick shows that grace and the Kingdom of
God were important themes in the Old Testament just as they are in the New
Testament.[35]
However, when Israel sinned their sins were punished in history.[36] Maybe not in the time the original sin was
committed but at some point in their timeline they were punished. The Assyrian and Babylonian captivities are
well known testaments to the judgement of Israel for their sins in
history. The Church on the other hand is
waiting for the end of time for judgement.
The common eschatological beliefs of the church today show that
judgement will come ultimately at the end of all time.[37]
The witness of Israel is an ongoing cycle from following God, to falling
into a pattern of sin, to God punishing them, to a place where Israel repents
and then follows God again. This cycle
is best seen in the book of Judges where repentance is proceeded by a Judge
intervening. Prophets seem to function
as interceders for the people; Gods voice calling Israel to repentance to
escape judgement. The book of Jonah
convinces us that God is a loving God because in this story the Ninevites were
warned of their impending judgement and subsequent doom, but they repented and
were saved. Proving that God operated in
the Old Testament through a system of grace just as he is clearly portrayed in
the New Testament. However, Israel’s
witness to God was done through the best revelation they had which was the Law
of Moses - Torah. Moses gave the Law and
Israel interpreted God as Judge.
The
Witness of the Church
As mentioned above, the issue with the problem of evil is that
Christians, full of the Holy Spirit, are the answer to the problem. Moreover, we are ‘missing the mark’[38]
by being victims of evil instead of the overcomers of evil. The Churches response to evil should be to
provide the solution, through communities of caring and compassionate people
who love one another.[39] Humans are guilty of complaining that if God
is loving then his love is sparse.[40]However,
as the Irving movie rightly suggests, God’s design is that the church is His
response to the problem of evil.[41] Jesus calls the church to be a witness of
God’s love by showing our love for one another.[42] After, all a disciple is supposed to become
their rabbi.[43]
The church, at times, has operated out of the humanistic victim mentality
with regards to the problem of evil. Wright calls it the ‘elder brother’ mentality;
a grouch and sulker who wants to see evil punished and is upset when the Father
embraces the sinner instead of punishing him.[44]The
church has forgotten the warnings of C. S. Lewis, that when people reject the
love and mercy of God they then try to hold God to ransom.[45]They
blame God for all the problems in the own lives and in the world. The Church should operate out of the
overcoming mindset prescribed forit by Jesus.[46] The witness of the church in a victim
mentality has been to install the fear of God who punishes the sinner. This witness is seen today in the churches
reaction to abortion and homosexuality - judgement. It echoes the witness of Israel and
encourages the view that God is more judgemental than loving.
The Church, Israel and nature are witness to the providence of God.[47] The evidence of God’s providence comes
through his preservation of His creation, His governance of the His creation,
His answers to prayer and through signs and wonders.[48] However, while God’s providence is an
antithesis to the problem of evil, it is a response formed as a believers
conviction and not tenable for someone who does not believe.[49]
The church should be a witness of is the self-sacrificing servant God;
who does not destroy his enemies but loves them.[50]
A reflection of Jesus. Oord describes the appropriate witness of a loving God
by the church would be one that displays God as personal and relational.[51] He is a kind and loving Father and we are His
sons.[52] Sons represent their Father’s glory. The
church is meant to represent the defeat of evil that occurred upon the cross.[53]This
is the ultimate act that proves that God is a loving God and He loves the
world. The church should love as Jesus
modelled it. After all, we are to be co-labourers
of love with God and we are to be the evidence that God is loving.[54]
Philosophical
and Theological Arguments
Atheist
Atheists believe that there is no such thing as God. God does not
exist. Hegel and Nietzsche famously
stated, “God is Dead”.[55]
Dawkins, the current frontman for atheism, continues the sentiment in his book The
God Delusion.[56]Dawkins
admits that the purpose of writing such a book as The God Delusion is to
convert people to atheism.[57] His main argument is logical inconsistency
for God to be loving and for the existence of evil. The inconsistency argument is found in the
first chapter where Dawkins shows his angst against a God or gods that release
so much, pain, suffering and wrath upon the Earth.[58]
The moral law argument of C. S. Lewis is that there is a natural law of
human nature that provides all humans with a concept of good and evil. According to Lewis, that law points to a
designer outside of this world.[59] Many Christian apologists have used this as
evidence that atheism and its dogma evolution, cannot possibly explain the
moral code that exists in human beings.
Darwinian survival of the fittest implies that I should be able to kill,
rape and steal to appease my needs. That
is, evil cannot exist if it is just an outcome of my inbuilt animalistic behaviour. For example, a cat is not considered evil for
killing a mouse. There is no moral code in Darwin’s survival of the fittest.Lewis
argues along these lines.
However, atheists believe that the moral code that exists in human
societies is a social construct and logical outcome of evolution.[60] Humans recognised the need for community is
essential for survival and that for a community to function there must be a
social code. That forms the basis of
atheist morality.[61]This
is evidence that the conclusion of this research is correct; the best witness
for the existence of a loving God is a Christian community strong on love,
overcoming evil by caring for those effected by it.
The problem of evil is debate that cannot be won academically. Both sides have a different definition. The Christians define evil as it is written
in the Bible while the atheists define it based on the consensus of the human
masses. Interestingly, both arguments
are probably incorrect. Both arguments
rely on human understanding to determine good and evil. According to the Bible the very root of the
issue is that humans do not have the ability to determine good and evil; it is
because we ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that we think we
do. The issue is that after eating from
that tree we began to decide what was good and evil; that is, we created our
own moral code. This is the moral code of humanism that is
promoted by Dawkins and atheists today.
God, according to them, is dead and has been replaced.
Agnostic
By in large the agnostics tend to follow the atheists. However, they are think God exists but does
not interfere with mankind. Dawkins
claims that many people take the position of agnosticism when they are afraid
that they will be condemned by religious fanatics.[62] He dedicates a section of The God Delusionto it, called The Poverty of Agnosticism. In this section, he bemoans that agnostics
are just atheists without the courage to fully commit by name.[63]
Dawkins’ passion
to see agnostics fully commit to atheism is onlyshadowed by the Christian evangelist’s
passion to see them commit to Christianity.
Hick portrays the point of view that the issue of the problem of evil is
debated mainly to gain support from the by standing agnostics who are the ones
demanding an answer in order to choose a side.[64] Hick goes on to demonstrate the issue for
Christians in debating atheism on the problem of evil is an argument logically
favours atheism. Because, even if a
Christian can demonstrate academically how a loving God created a world where
evil exists then the next question about hell is the atheist’s clincher.[65] Why would a loving God create hell and put
his creation there? This question falls
out of the scope of this assignment but demonstrates the losing position of the
Christian apologist in an outright academic debate. This is the nature of the problem of evil
described above.
The above point
highlights again the need for Christians to demonstrate God’s love in their way
they live in their communities. This is
where the argument is won for Christians.
As James points out faith without deeds is dead.[66]God’s
love demonstrated through Jesus dying on the cross. God says that there is no greater love than
to lay your life down for your friends, then he does that.[67] Academic answers are important and should be
sort but the real evidence for a loving God is in the love that His people have
for others.
Pantheists
The pantheists believe in many gods.
Most of the gentile nations have been pantheists at some stage. In primal-religions or animistic practices
many things can be worshiped but not all things are gods. The pantheists attribute things to worship as
gods. The religion of Hinduism is the
largest pantheistic religion still being practiced today. The Hindu gods seem to share similarities
with the pantheon of gods of Greece, Egypt, Norway and other ancient
religions. They live in the mountains,
they breed with humans, they have powers, there are good and evil gods and the
fight each other. So, Hinduism presents
are real living example of pantheistic point of view.
As presented in the introduction, in Hinduism, good and evil just exist,
they do not need explaining. Evil itself
is not bad and good itself is not good. The Gita points out that to be at real peace
is to renounce both good and evil.[68] The actions of devotion toward a god brings
purity but purity is neither good or evil.[69] This purity comes because of the yokingto a
pure being; a god. The yoke is formed
through the act of disciplining one’s mind to the character of that god.[70] However, Hinduism seems to be at peace with
presenting conflicting ideas. For
example, the demons are considered evil, their actions are normally evil, and
people conspiring with demons are evil.[71] Hindu moral standards are not derived from
concepts of good and evil but from karma.
The basic premise of karma is that what you do to others will be done to
you. This is the basis of the Hindu
moral code. The problem of evil and Christian theodicy does not exist for
Hindus. Gods can be good or evil
whenever they like so naturally both exist and occur to everyone. It pays to have a god on your side when evil
happens to you.
Conclusion
Is God really a loving God? Yes! The cross is our main evidence of that but
also the providence of God to those who are willing to believe he is loving.
The Christians best witness for the existence of a loving God is a
Christian community strong on love, overcoming evil by caring for those effected
by it. This response does not appease
the academic questions raised by problem of evil as fiercely debated by many atheists,
but it does offer a tangible way for problem to be solved.
While the problem of evil is not important to pantheistic religions, but
it has taunted Christian theologians as it is a question presented simply but
having no simple answers. The Christian academic
response to the problem is adequate but difficult win a debate with because it
is logically inconsistent that God is loving and created evil. The existence of Hell to punish the evil
people is the clincher in the atheist’s rebuttal. The atheists have rightly used this problem
as their main argument against the existence of God. It is the best argument they have. However, humanism and evolution offer no help
to those confronted with pain and suffering caused by evil. So, ultimately the atheists might have a
strong argument, but they do not have a solution those affected by evil. Whereas, Christians do have a solution; a
loving community that reflects the loving God they worship.
Bibliography
[1]H. Rayment-Pickard, 50 Key Concepts in Theology (London: Andrews UK Limited, 2010).
Ebook. Chapter: Evil.
[3]James P. Danaher, "The Problem of Evil from a
Gospel Perspective," Evangelical
Review of Theology 36, no. 2 (2012): 137.
[5]Mark Hocknull, Pannenberg
on Evil, Love and God: The Realisation of Divine Love (Farnham, England:
Ashgate Publishing Limited 2016), 149.
[10]Thaddeus J.
Williams, Love, Freedom, and Evil:
Does Authentic Love Require Free Will? (New York: Rodopi, 2011), 15-18.
[31]Walter C. Kaiser
et al., Hard Sayings of the Bible
(Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010). Ebook. Chapter 3.
[38]James Strong, "Strong's Concordance," (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishing,
1995). Ebook. Hebrew 2398 /chata/ חָטָא - to miss the mark, to miss, go wrong, sin.
[42]John 13:35
[46]Rev. 2:7, 11, 26; 3:5, 12, 31
[47]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Publishing Group,
2013), 359-60.
[50]Thomas Jay Oord, The
Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence
(Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 111.
[55]Friedrich
Nietzsche and Keith
Ansell-Pearson, Nietzsche: 'On the
Genealogy of Morality' and Other Writings Student Edition, trans., Carole
Diethe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 185; Hocknull, 149.
[66]James 2:20, 26
[67]John 15:13
[68]Bina Gupta, ""Bhagavad Gītā" as Duty
and Virtue Ethics: Some Reflections," The
Journal of Religious Ethics 34, no. 3 (2006): 388.
[71]Gabriella Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi, "Demonology in
Tamil Folktales," Anthropos 93,
no. 4/6 (1998): 407-8.
Comments
Post a Comment