For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is—limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death—He had the honesty and courage to take His own medicine. Whatever game He is playing with His creation, He has kept His own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that He has not exacted from Himself. He has Himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death. When He was a man, He played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it was well worthwhile.
— Dorothy L. Sayers (1893-1957), Christian Letters to a Post-Christian World: A Selection of Essays [1969]
There seems to be a theme here, as you also take on the problem of evil/pain and how pain is part of evolution, which is God’s tool. See this post on Gordon Glover’s site, and this post on Cliff Martin’s site. Those posts and comments are far from conclusive, but still give food for thought.
What is unclear to me is why God would set up a world of pain and suffering so that we could evolve? Does it really help that He also experienced this pain when He was the creator of it? What validation does that really give? You have to explain the purpose of evolution to get humanity to this point of being able to sin, followed by the requirement of God’s humanity and then our acceptance of that to attain redemption. Upon reaching heaven, though, all sickness and death disappear, meaning that evolution is a temporary (Big Bang to Second Coming) vehicle of God’s, and something else will take its place in the new world. You can spin His use of evolution and His putting on fallible flesh as love of the tallest order, but to do so seems to ignore that such a god is sado-masochistic. I don’t mean to sound sacrilegious. I am just saying that coming up with a coherent Christianity that accepts evolution as God’s tool is difficult.
Over your course, try to also convince yourself of the negative hypothesis. (How could an evil force use evolution? What if evolution is not God’s will? etc.) Call it “Devil’s Advocate” unless that makes you too uneasy. Point is, you will be better rounded and have solid footing for explaining why things are when you can also explain why they are not.
Hey Tom! We keep running into each other 😉
Did you happen to catch the discussion on this post of Mike’s? Its implications for why the less-than-ideal exists in our universe are quite interesting. I’d love to hear your take on it.
Tom,
Without life’s challenges, we would not grow intellectually, spiritually, physically, or even evolutionally (is that a word?). James 1:2-4 says, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
I can’t help but think how applicable this is to ALL life, throughout the eons. Without the means to adapt, any changes whatsoever would lead to stagnation and, ultimately, death. Sure, one could posit a god who pampers its creation and invites no change into the cosmos, but what good would that do? Relationships, regardless of whether they’re inter-human or not, require challenges in order to grow. I doubt God, in His wisdom, would have preferred to subject His creation to one of eternal infancy, complete with “spoiled brat” syndrome. I prefer a cosmos of challenges and I am ready to accept whatever comes at me, be it death, sorrow, or pain. For it is through those things (and lesser challenges, of course) that I grow as a person and as a member of this cosmos.
As for the idea that evolution is “temporary,” I don’t subscribe to that position. As a preterist, I don’t believe that the Bible teaches a supernatural “end of the world as we know it” (as taught in the majority of Christian churches) unless it comes by natural means. I do, however, believe that those who accept the truths of God are destined to something greater than what they currently experience (cf. Rev 14:13).
Regarding the “negative hypothesis,” I do admit to having some difficulty understanding how evolution can’t be God’s will. In my view, evolutionary processes were ordained and established from the beginning. To have God set in motion something for which He did not desire would lead theologically and philosophically to a weak and non-influential deity (if He would even deserve such a title).
I’m not sure I understand your “how could an evil force use evolution” hypothesis. Can you elaborate?
Stephen and Mike,
Well, in response to Mike’s post of May 23, he said,
…but I’m not so sure that any finite being, however intelligent, could stay in God’s good graces long….
This is true. Even in a YEC world, Garden of Eden of no death, let’s say there was 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,… bijillion years of living peaceably, not eating of the Tree. This is still a blink of an eye in forever terms, but one day, Eve got tempted. (And just when you think you know someone!)
Point is, given a choice and a forever, the odds of accepting that choice at least once are a certainty. In which case, God knew sin would happen. In fact, even after a second coming and some kind of eternity, I can’t see how sin can’t happen again!
Now, as far “spoiled brat” syndrome (and this post), you are right. We need to not always get our way so that we can develop empathy and to understand cause and effect. But coming to grips with cause and effect is our own modulation of evolution (which also evolves, at these higher levels). Point is, evolution is its own perpetual thing, and for God to take part does not seem to add anything to our evolution. I’m sure you disagree, so I’m curious to hear your opinions.
Regarding negative hypotheses, let’s say God is all powerful, but because of love and justice, he exercises restraint in certain ways. What if random evolution was the best option available to God? That is, it might not be His ideal, but because of evil, this was the way to shake out evil, deal with it, and give beings free will? It’s not God really creating evolution as some master plan, but as a means for dealing with evil.
So, this gets to another point, where evil, then, can take advantage of evolution. Viruses are “evil” in the way they bring about death. At the same time, survivors are potentially fitter. So, it’s all how you spin it whether you call it Good or Evil. Now, if you say that to sin requires some kind of cognitive capacity to recognize God (i.e. animals other than us are not sinners), then evil used evolution to eventually devise people to denounce God (because it was bound to happen eventually, right?), and perhaps God had to be fallible, too, getting on this evolution ride that evil introduced to put an end to it.
Tom,
In fact, even after a second coming and some kind of eternity, I can’t see how sin can’t happen again!
This is an interesting topic. But I’m curious as to where you’ve developed the idea (biblically speaking) that we lack the capacity to sin post-mortem. (Just playing Devil’s Advocate here.)
Point is, evolution is its own perpetual thing, and for God to take part does not seem to add anything to our evolution. I’m sure you disagree, so I’m curious to hear your opinions.
Indeed, evolution is a process with which I believe God has not tinkered since the beginning of the cosmos, with one exception, to wit, that God’s interaction with the human race in a relational capacity has had an effect on the evolution of mankind, just as any other outside force does. Take Yahweh, Jesus of Nazareth, and the Holy Spirit out of the picture and you’ll undoubtedly experience an entirely different course of history and evolutionary future for the race of men.
What if random evolution was the best option available to God? That is, it might not be His ideal, but because of evil, this was the way to shake out evil, deal with it, and give beings free will? It’s not God really creating evolution as some master plan, but as a means for dealing with evil.
Interesting. Can you elaborate more on this?
So, this gets to another point, where evil, then, can take advantage of evolution. Viruses are “evil” in the way they bring about death.
But what makes physical death inherently “evil”? What if there was no death? Without the controlling mechanisms of death and disease, this planet would become overrun by various species, destined to become overcrowded and ultimately uninhabitable. Death has a purpose: it makes room for more life and life more abundantly!
it’s all how you spin it whether you call it Good or Evil.
But how is it that you came to define things as “good” and “evil”? What is your basis for making these judgments?
Now, if you say that to sin requires some kind of cognitive capacity to recognize God (i.e. animals other than us are not sinners), then evil used evolution to eventually devise people to denounce God (because it was bound to happen eventually, right?), and perhaps God had to be fallible, too, getting on this evolution ride that evil introduced to put an end to it.
Not following you here, Tom. Sorry.
But I’m curious as to where you’ve developed the idea (biblically speaking) that we lack the capacity to sin post-mortem.
This is sort of caught up in the equation, sin = death. This is prominent in Romans 6, where eternal life is offered to those that are sin free. Also, “slaves to righteousness” (Rom 6:18) seems to me to say that the saved are incapable of sinning.
Death has a purpose: it makes room for more life and life more abundantly!
I agree with you, but the Bible is pretty clear that sin = death and Jesus = life. You can spin that as a quality-of-life thing — that the sinful life is spiritual death and the Jesus-filled life is spiritual life, but if that was the case, I don’t think God would have used such deceitful language. Another example is Revelation 21:4, which says that there is no more sickness, sorrow, or death. Collectively, if God is using or has used evolution, it seems to me a temporary thing (Big Bang to Second Coming).
Take Yahweh, Jesus of Nazareth, and the Holy Spirit out of the picture and you’ll undoubtedly experience an entirely different course of history and evolutionary future for the race of men.
Couldn’t He have just had a butterfly flap its wings just so?
Can you elaborate more on [the idea that God had to use evolution?]
Not too much. Perhaps Cliff Martin will explore it because his impression is that evil existed before our existence and that God is using evolution as a means to get rid of evil once and for all.
I was raised in the tradition that there is this cosmic battle between good and evil. As such, there is a universe out there looking at this little ol’ earth where a big part of this cosmic battle is at play. God has to show that goodness is better than evil, that good will win. But he can’t just wipe out the evil willy nilly because he is love and wants free will. In such an environment, God’s hands, while all powerful, are tied. Perhaps evolution and the “natural course” was the only way to deal with evil.
But suppose it was evil that decided the rules in this cosmic wager. Maybe it was evil’s purpose to show that in this roll of the dice, that through the unfolding of nature, matter would become animated and eventually sentient — even to the point of one day deciding to sin. This would prove that sin is natural. (How many times have you heard that we’re born into sin?) Now, from there, you have a situation where God has to cloak himself in this nature to abolish it.
Is it a whacked idea? Most definitely, but there might be more Biblical support for it than theories trying to explain how God uses evolution. I’ll post more on my blog someday.
But how is it that you came to define things as “good” and “evil”? What is your basis for making these judgments?
I came to define these things through what I was taught by my parents, teachers, friends, co-workers, observations, and readings. Many of these were Christian sources who assumed they were transmitting words and gifts from God. As useful as the definitions become, the tag that they are from God demeans our human history and what we can accomplish culturally.
Tom,
I wrote: But I’m curious as to where you’ve developed the idea (biblically speaking) that we lack the capacity to sin post-mortem.
You wrote: This is sort of caught up in the equation, sin = death. This is prominent in Romans 6, where eternal life is offered to those that are sin free. Also, “slaves to righteousness” (Rom 6:18) seems to me to say that the saved are incapable of sinning.
Romans 6 does indeed discuss eternal life, but that is a here-and-now possession, not necessarily something limited to the afterlife (cf. 6:4). The chapter speaks of the believer no longer being dominated by (or enslaved to) sin. Sin, which would normally lead to spiritual death, is (in the original Greek) “rendered ineffective, inoperative” (6:6). Unfortunately, many Christians conflate the idea of being no longer a slave to sin with the idea of being sin-free.
You can spin that as a quality-of-life thing — that the sinful life is spiritual death and the Jesus-filled life is spiritual life, but if that was the case, I don’t think God would have used such deceitful language.
Deceitful language? How so?
Another example is Revelation 21:4, which says that there is no more sickness, sorrow, or death. Collectively, if God is using or has used evolution, it seems to me a temporary thing (Big Bang to Second Coming).
Revelation must be read from its original covenantal perspective. The author of Revelation is speaking of “sickness, sorrow, and death” as it relates to the curse-bringing Old Covenant law. It was never meant to suggest that those who partake of the New Covenant would never experience those things physically. Even Isaiah’s “new heavens and earth” speaks of physical death still being present (65:20); and Revelation itself still speaks of sinful people living outside the New Jerusalem after the arrival of the new heavens and earth (21:27).
Please don’t take offense, but your “fundamentalist” interpretations of Scripture are showing. 😉 Both the young-earth creationist and futurist interpretations of Genesis and Revelation, respectively, are based on thoroughly faulty hermeneutics. Ironically, much of the ammunition that atheists use against Christianity is based on identical misinterpretations of the Bible, i.e., understanding Genesis 1 as relating a historical or scientific account of creation or Revelation as some “end-of-the-cosmos” tract.
I wrote: Take Yahweh, Jesus of Nazareth, and the Holy Spirit out of the picture and you’ll undoubtedly experience an entirely different course of history and evolutionary future for the race of men.
Tom wrote: Couldn’t He have just had a butterfly flap its wings just so?
Yes, but He didn’t.
Perhaps Cliff Martin will explore it because his impression is that evil existed before our existence and that God is using evolution as a means to get rid of evil once and for all.
Admittedly, Cliff and I have vastly differing eschatologies, so we definitely won’t agree on this particular matter.
Maybe it was evil’s purpose to show that in this roll of the dice, that through the unfolding of nature, matter would become animated and eventually sentient — even to the point of one day deciding to sin. This would prove that sin is natural.
Although I don’t accept your premise, I will gladly admit that sin is natural. It is through the supernatural, i.e., the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, that allows us to transcend the natural and not be “slaves to sin.”
Now, from there, you have a situation where God has to cloak himself in this nature to abolish [sin]. Is it a whacked idea? Most definitely …
The idea that Christ HAD to be sacrificed on a cross in such a brutal manner is, unfortunately, flawed. The demonstration of Christ’s love for us was certainly done in this way because it held significant symbolic meaning to the people of Jesus’ day. If Christ were to experience the Incarnation in our day and age, His demonstration of love toward us while we were yet sinners would, undoubtedly, take on an entirely new “look.” I want to challenge you, Tom, to find the infallible “message of faith” within the biblical narrative and not get too caught up on the incidentals—despite the fact that you’ve embraced atheism. Don’t settle for flawed interpretations of Scripture as the basis for your arguments against Christianity.
The problem of pain is hard for creationists, harder still for TE, but IMO, the hardest problem of pain is not dealing with the pain God allows, but with the pain God proactively causes.
Romans 9 and Numbers 31 paint pretty nasty pictures of how God treats some people. They are treated this way not because of the man who wills, but because God hardens whom he hardens so they may be used as vessels of wrath.
This is one rule that God didn’t play by: Jesus did not have to risk the chance that God just wouldn’t choose him. A life of poverty and the cross are petty when contrasted with an eternal hell.
(I understand the difference between hypercalvinism and more Armenian viewpoints. This is why I reference Romans 9 rather than total depravity or any other piece of any systematic theology.)
Hey Jeffrey,
Romans 9 and Numbers 31 paint pretty nasty pictures of how God treats some people.
Well, for one thing, I’m afraid you are still going by the old Fundamentalist playbook in attributing everything in Deuteronomy to literally historical writing. Secondly, I don’t know that harsh justice as described in Number 31, even if completely historical, is so irreconcilable with the NT God. What happened in Number 31 could be viewed as a rather understandable accommodation to the harsh realities of the ANE world: the adults were killed for the reasons stated within the text, and the boys for pragmatic reasons (e.g., they were likely to grow up as rebels, cause insurrection. etc.). The girls…well, given the treatment of the others I don’t know what would have been more merciful than what they got.
This is one rule that God didn’t play by: Jesus did not have to risk the chance that God just wouldn’t choose him. A life of poverty and the cross are petty when contrasted with an eternal hell.
A friend of mine has written a lot on the misunderstandings of hell as “burning for eternity”.
My personal opinion is that Romans 9 is perhaps not so difficult as you imagine. Check out my posts on this topic (1 and 2) to see my position on these things. There’s a lot of sense to be made of this stuff – even by those who aren’t insiders! That is, unless you’ve already made up your mind 😉
Please don’t take offense, but your “fundamentalist” interpretations of Scripture are showing. 😉 Both the young-earth creationist and futurist interpretations of Genesis and Revelation, respectively, are based on thoroughly faulty hermeneutics.
So Mike, are you saying a futurist interpretation is a “fundamentalist” hermeneutic?
Dan,
Maybe I should qualify that. A dispensationalist interpretation of Revelation is “fundamentalist.”
Steve,
Thanks for the links. I haven't read them yet, but I've bookmarked them and will certainly get there soon.
>That is, unless you've already made up your mind 😉
I've made up my mind that evangelical Christianity is false, but only in the sense that I do with pretty much anything outside math: provisionally.
(Btw, I'm technically agnostic, but I have strong deist leanings, and even a few theist leanings.)