Stylos

“…so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar (stylos) and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

An occasional commentary by Pastor Jeff Riddle, Jefferson Park Baptist Church

Theological Issues and Questions After September 11

September 2001

We are asking ourselves plenty of questions in these days about the nature of God and the appropriate ethical response of those who are believers to the events of September 11, 2001. This paper attempts to address some common questions and provide some biblical responses.

Why would a good God allow this kind of evil?

This is a common question that many ask in times of pain and suffering. The intellectual difficulty is that orthodox faith holds two notions about God as compatible that may seem contradictory. These are expressed in the children’s prayer: God is great, God is good. We hold that God is great (omnipotent, all-powerful; and omniscient, all-knowing) and that God is good (benevolent). This is who God is by definition. So, if God is both great and good, why does he not use his foreknowledge and power to control and manipulate situations to avoid pain and suffering for his creation in general and those who honor him, in particular? Could God not have supernaturally intervened to alert security personnel to the presence of hijackers? Could he not have made the planes to divert from their paths? If he could, then why did he not? In Archibald McLeish’s Pulitzer prize winning verse play “J.B.” based on the biblical story of Job, the character Nickles (Satan) sings: “If God is God He is not good, if God is good He is not God.” This brief phrase gets to the heart of theodicy (the problem of evil), the question of why a good and powerful God allows evil.

There are two inadequate answers to this question. First, one might posit that God is indeed good, but that God is not all-powerful. God wants to help us, but he either is unable to help us or he intentionally limits or restrains himself and does not help us to complete some hidden purpose that he has. In modern theology there is branch called “process” theology which hold that the God who created our world is still developing and growing. Like a human being God is maturing and learning. We are co-creators with him and so our actions can thwart his desires. Even in evangelical circles there is movement known as the “Openness of God” theology which applies notions similar to process theology while using a conservative view of scripture. This view holds that the future is not determined and that God may be as surprised about events that occur as we are. These views, however, contradicts the biblical understanding of God in that they deny the basic attributes of God which are ascribed to him in scripture. Namely, they deny that he is all good and all powerful and all knowing. They also deny that God’s nature is immutable and unchangeable. When Moses meets Yahweh, the Lord says: “I am that I am” (Exod 3:14). The God of the Bible is already (and has always been) what he is now and will always be. He is not developing and changing the way human beings do. His character is fixed. And he has both exhaustive foreknowledge of all events within the cosmos and the power to alter and impact anything he desires.

Second, one might say that God is indeed all-powerful but not benevolent, as orthodoxy understands the term. In this view God is somewhat capricious and mischievous. This is the way the ancient Greeks viewed “the gods.” This is still the way God is seen in much popular theology. In this view we have to be careful how we treat God, because if we hurt his feelings then he may use his power to strike us down or bring misery upon us. God, in this view, is unpredictable and erratic. One moment he does good things for us and in the next, with no explanation, he brings us evil.

Biblical faith rejects both these options as inadequate. Instead it affirms without reservation both that God is good and great. The helpful term used to express the character of the God of the Bible is “sovereign.” Biblical faith affirms that God has good and gracious plans and purposes for his creation. He is working through the circumstances of life to bring about his will. No events and actions take him unaware. Our vision of events is short term. We see things from an earthly perspective, but God sees them from a heavenly perspective. Our view is limited; his is unlimited. The prophet Isaiah summed it up this way:

”For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and snow come down from heaven and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isa 55:9-10).

An affirmation of God’s sovereignty is an affirmation of God’s authoritative goodness and God’s boundless power. Paul put it this way: “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom 8:28). The person who questions the character of God by asking “Why does a good God allow evil things to happen?” is exhibiting a lack of understanding of the character of the God of the Bible.

There are further challenges to this question. First, it assumes that God is the one who is directly responsible for the evil things. This ignores the fact that most of what we call evil is actually the result of human sinfulness. God’s command is “Thou shalt not kill” (Exod 20:13). The terrorists of September 11, 2001 broke God’s command. This leads to another kind of defense in support of the character of God. It is the “free will defense.” This view sees the source of evil not in the permission of God but in the actions of sinful humanity.

As for natural, instead of human, disasters it is still unclear that God is to blame. First, scripture teaches that not just human beings, but all creation is “subjected to frustration” (Rom 8:20). Could it be that non-human creation either has rebelled against God (as humans have) or is adversely impacted by the fall (see Gen 3:14-19)? Even many “natural disasters” might have their root in obvious human evil. For example, tragic earthquakes in which many people are injured might at root be attributable to corrupt contractors who cut corners in construction out of greed. Even something like shark attacks might be attributable to human action, like over-fishing, that does not demonstrate evil in God’s guidance of creation but in human lack of stewardship of creation (cf. Gen 1:28).

Another challenge to this question is whether or not what we perceive to be mindless suffering and pain actually has some redemptive value. A cancer patient may have to go through the pain of surgery or chemotherapy, but the end result, with successful treatment, is health and life. A child may go running into traffic and a parent may have to forcefully grasp the child’s arm and even administer a spanking to warn against dangerous behavior. The immature child may see the action as painful and the parent as cruel and heartless, but the parent’s aim is instruction and provision. This type of response led C. S. Lewis to make his famous observation that pain was “God’s megaphone” to speak to us.

There is yet one more response to this question. How do we know that God was not at work in the tragic events of Tuesday September 11, 2001 to limit the death and destruction? How do we know that more people might have died were it not for God’s provision? Surely God was at least at work in restraining the response of our nation. What if we were not impacted by his word and had immediately set out for an eye for an eye type revenge? Could a larger and worse chain of events have been set into motion? How do we know that God was not at work to restrain and control the spread of evil?

Are these signs of the end times?

Jesus said: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of the birth pains” (Matt 24:7-8). The New Testament is clear that we are living in the “last days.” We live in between the times when Jesus appeared in the flesh on earth and the time when he will return in glory. Christians through the ages have seen in times of crisis evidence that we are approaching the end of history and the time of Christ’s return, and yet still the Lord tarries.

The New Testament offers two important challenges to believers. First, it asks that we passionately desire and be prepared for the Lord’s coming. Jesus told a parable about ten virgins who were awaiting the coming of the bridegroom (Matt 25:1-13). The wise brought oil for their lamps, but the foolish did not prepare. “The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep” (v. 5). Jesus ends the parable with this admonishment: “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour” (v. 13). Second, however, Jesus also cautions against inappropriate speculation or fruitless fixation on prediction of the timing of the second coming. In his teaching on the last days Jesus said: “No one knows about that day or that hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt 24:36). Before ascending to the Father Jesus tells the disciples: “It is not for you to know the times or the dates that the Father has set by his own authority” (Acts 1:7). Our call is to be busy about kingdom work in the here and now.

Is this a sign of God’s punishment for national sin?

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson made a splash in the news in the days after the terrorist attacks for claiming that this was a sign of God’s disapproval on our nation for abandoning his ways. Our nation’s permissive attitude toward things like abortion and homosexuality and our materialism were answered by God’s removal of protection from us. There was a public uproar over these statements. Falwell recanted and apologized, while Robertson also distanced himself from these statements. I read the comments of one liberal clergyman who denounced Falwell and Robertson as the “Christian Taliban.”

In reflecting on this controversy, however, I think the basic notion should be given some consideration, and perhaps be redirected, rather than cavalierly dismissed. It should not just be pushed aside because we have assumed a closed and morally neutral universe into which God cannot possibly intervene. I was reminded of how the writers of the Old Testament interpreted the destruction of Israel at the hand of her enemies and the subsequent exile. When the Northern Kingdom of Israel fell in 721 B. C., the interpretation of the root cause of the event from a scriptural perspective was not geo-political but theological. This is clearly expressed in 2 Kings 17:7-20:

7 All this took place because the Israelites had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of Egypt from under the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They worshiped other gods
8 and followed the practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before them, as well as the practices that the kings of Israel had introduced.
9 The Israelites secretly did things against the LORD their God that were not right. From watchtower to fortified city they built themselves high places in all their towns.
10 They set up sacred stones and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree.
11 At every high place they burned incense, as the nations whom the LORD had driven out before them had done. They did wicked things that provoked the LORD to anger.
12 They worshiped idols, though the LORD had said, “You shall not do this.”
13 The LORD warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and seers: “Turn from your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Law that I commanded your fathers to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants the prophets.”
14 But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the LORD their God.
15 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the LORD had ordered them, “Do not do as they do,” and they did the things the LORD had forbidden them to do.
16 They forsook all the commands of the LORD their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal.
17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sorcery and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
18 So the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left,
19 and even Judah did not keep the commands of the LORD their God. They followed the practices Israel had introduced.
20 Therefore the LORD rejected all the people of Israel; he afflicted them and gave them into the hands of plunderers, until he thrust them from his presence.

This sounds somewhat similar to Falwell’s statement. The writers of scripture cannot imagine any event that happens in the world that is not under God’s control. Even evil events must have some redemptive purpose in God’s plans. Before we dismiss Falwell’s comments offhand, we should really consider if they might hold some grain of truth.

There are some immediate theological weaknesses with Falwell’s presentation of the idea that the events of September 11 were divine punishment for our nation. First, Falwell assumes that God is punishing the United States for its spiritual shortcomings. This implies that the nation state is the primary entity with which God is concerned. The problem is that the United States is not a theocratic nation. We, as Americans, are not God’s covenant people in the same way that the nation of ancient Israel was. In fact, our nation is explicitly secular. The great theologian St. Augustine of Hippo made this critical distinction centuries ago as the Roman Empire was crumbling when he distinguished between the city of man (the institution of human or civil government) and the city of God (the church). I heard one Baptist preacher quoted on a BBC broadcast as saying that this might be God’s judgement on a carnal American church. How does that sit with us? Have we failed to be salt, light, and leaven (Matt 5:13-16; 13:33)? I think our nation might have taken Falwell’s words quite differently if he had seen it as judgement on the church and on himself, rather than pointing the finger at others. Judgement, in the Christian perspective, always begins with introspection in the life of the believer. David’s prayer of contrition in Psalm 51:3 was “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me”; and not “Create in everyone else a clean heart and renew a right spirit within them.” Falwell’s comments were also inappropriate pastorally. If someone in Falwell’s church whom he loved was negligent behind the wheel of a car and crashed into a tree and was killed, I should hope that his first words to the family would not be a lecture on how careless the driver was. His first words would be comfort and care. In the days after September 11, our nation was not ready for lectures but for tears. As time passes we are better prepared for soul searching. Finally, his comments were dangerous because he presumed to speak authoritatively concerning the mind of God. The writer of 2 Kings 17 could do this, because he was inspired to write scripture. Now that scripture is written, we have it to turn to for authority. We must always be careful about couching personal opinion and interpretation as synonymous with the Lord’s.

The most critical difficulty with this interpretation, however, is its relation to the larger Christian interpretation of the human condition. It assumes that recent moral failings are somehow more serious than the more general fallen human state. This is a persistent problem for Christian traditions with legalistic tendencies. Falwell assumes that the problem is American “sins” rather than human “sin.” He identifies the symptoms of the illness and not its root cause. The Bible, however, is clear about tracing human disobedience to the very beginning (Gen 3). Paul says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). Moreover, he says that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). This is the basic truth of the old “Roman Road.” The fact that we are sinful and deserve death is nothing new, nor is the promise that “the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 6:23). The events of these days may draw us to understand not just the sin of the others (the terrorists) but the sin of our own hearts and draw us to fall down in repentance before God.

Jeffrey T. Riddle
Pastor, Jefferson Park Baptist Church

Reproduction Permission: Permission is granted to copy this material — in its complete text only — for not-for-profit use (sharing with a friend, church, school, Bible study, etc.). Other uses require written permission. This material may not be sold or included in publications intended for sale. Feedback is welcomed at jeffparkchurch@juno.com.