- Activist Feedback
- Essay: Job and the Theodicy Problem, part 1
- This Week’s
Sermon from Rev. Frank and Mary Hoffman
1. Activist Feedback
Angie, who leafleted at the Indianapolis 8/23-24 Women of Faith
Conference, writes:
It was a big crowd and we stood on the
sidewalk passing the booklets out. We didn't have any problems
whatsoever. I had a lot of people looking at the CVA tee shirt. We
were proud to show it off. We went through less than 2 boxes
[300/box] of booklets. We can keep them for the David Crowder
concert.
Thank you for all you do. I love the new booklets
and the title alone makes one think right off.
Contact
Paris at
christian_vegetarian@yahoo.com if you can help. To find out about
all upcoming leafleting and tabling opportunities in your area, join
the CVA Calendar Group at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christian_vegetarian/
2. Essay: Job and the Theodicy Problem, part 1
Inspired by an
insightful series of sermons by my pastor, Rev. Shawnthea Monroe of
Plymouth Church of Shaker Heights, I offer some thoughts of my own.
The Book of Job deals with the Theodicy Problem, which Rabbi Harold
Kushner in Why Bad Things Happen to Good People summarizes nicely. He
notes that the presence of evil (undeserved suffering) is incompatible
with the notions that God is both all powerful (i.e., God is in
control and our world is a theodicy) and that God is good. If God is
all powerful, then the presence of evil means that God is not good. If
God is good, then the presence of evil means that God isn’t all
powerful.
Some have argued that suffering serves a greater
end, so what appears to be bad is in fact good. There are at least two
major problems with this view. First, it flies in the face of
experience. Few people with a debilitating chronic disease or who had
lost a child would be able to find good coming from the experience
that even remotely compensated for the suffering. Second, the theory
posits that the suffering or death of innocent individuals is
ultimately beneficial – presumably to those who are not suffering or
have not died. This is the logic of scapegoating, which I think is
incompatible with the faith of Christ.
A related approach
proposed by the philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, and satirized in the
character Professor Pangloss in Voltaire’s novel Candide, is that we
in fact live in the best of all possible worlds. Yes, there is
suffering, but the world would be even worse if this suffering did not
occur. Again, our everyday experience contradicts this view. If a
child is born with crippling physical or mental disabilities, we might
reasonably wonder, “Could not an omniscient God do better?” Indeed,
Charles Darwin’s agnosticism was largely due to his observations of
suffering in nature. He saw so much violence, suffering, and premature
death that he concluded that a good God could not be in charge.
Nearly everyone has a time in their lives when the notion of a good
God is challenged. I think nearly all children and young adults, as
well as many adults, have a sense that they are special and that they
deserve good things. This, I think, is a major impetus for the lottery
– a part of their psyche is convinced that they deserve to beat the
odds and attain the wealth that is their due. In reading biographies,
I find that people who have made great accomplishments often relate
that they always believed that they were destined for greatness. I
strongly suspect that nearly everyone in their youth has such
convictions, but for the vast majority of us reality hits and we need
to reorient our expectations. For many, participating with a group or
an institution that has power and influence is a substitute for
individual accomplishment, which explains in part the fervor with
which many people defend institutions to which they belong.
The nearly universal sense of individual entitlement receives its
greatest shocks when there is tragedy or profound disappointment –
events that tarnish the lives of nearly everyone. How do we retain
faith in a loving and caring God when these things happen? We can
conclude that God is not loving or caring, but if that were the case
we would be disinclined to worship God. We might perform rituals out
of fear of God’s wrath, but not out of love or admiration. It is
against the backdrop of these issues that I will begin to explore
theological implications of the Book of Job next week.
Stephen
R. Kaufman, M.D.
3. This Week’s Sermon from Rev. Frank
and Mary Hoffman
Working for Peace for All Creation