Rather, my principle aim has simply been to elucidate -- as far as in my lies -- what I understand to be the true scriptural account of God's goodness, the shape of redemption, the nature of evil, and the conditions of the fallen world, not to convince anyone of its credibility, but simply to show where many of the arguments of Christianity's antagonists and champions alike fail to address what is most essential to the gospel. (page 93)
Contemplating abstract ideas about God, the universe, man, salvation and the cause of evil and suffering is never akin to reading a five and dime novel. This book is made more difficult by the author's style of writing. He never chooses to use a common word when an obscure, more precise word will do. If you love words, and I love words, this isn't necessarily a problem. Still, the book, at only one-hundred-four pages, takes a little longer to digest than one might expect. The ideas expressed in this book challenged me to think more deeply about the nature of God and the nature of man. One of the most intriguing paradigms presented by the author was whether salvation can be best explained by picturing man as a criminal who needs pardoned or a slave who needs emancipated. The Bible is replete with images of slavery and emancipation. And, what difference do these two ideas have in how I understand original sin.
When I closed the book, I was left with questions that kept my brain active for some time. This is precisely why I consider the book a great read. I am troubled when Christians insist that God causes evil -- evil that destroys innocent children -- to fulfill his purpose or to judge a nation. But, this idea is not without Biblical precedent, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It might be easy to believe that Abraham interpreted the destruction of the cities based upon his personal bias and comparable "piety." However, the story begins with a visit from three supernatural beings and continues with Abraham attempting to persuade God to change his mind. In The Doors of the Sea, the author dismisses God's role in the Tsunami. His understanding is very similar to CS Lewis' explanation of the world as being enemy occupied territory. Evil cannot originate from God; all evil is the result of living in a fallen world. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't seem to neatly fit in the author's explanation.
Finally, and beyond the scope of this book, I don't believe it is possible to interpret how God intervenes in history by looking only at disasters. As I reflected on the doctrinal position of the author, I began to wonder, "What about miracles?" Biblical, historical and personal stories seem to indicate that at times God does step in a miraculously alter the natural order of things. People are healed from illnesses. The Israelites were emancipated through a series of miracles culminating with the death of all Egyptian first born males, many of whom were also innocent children. And, why is it that some people experience miraculous, physical healings when others do not? The New Testament explains why Paul wasn't healed from his thorn in the flesh. But, isn't there a difference between not providing a miraculous healing to an adult who has willingly placed his faith in Christ and is working for the glory of the kingdom and not providing a healing for a child who is suffering from cancer? Or, closer to home, not protecting an infant in the womb from the ravages of prenatal exposure to alcohol?
As an adult I chose to believe in theism. I chose the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I believe that Christ is His promised Messiah. I believe that God has revealed himself through prophets of Israel and through Christ (Hebrews 1:1, 2). Hart's argument would be be "whole" if I could dismiss the Tanakh, the Old Testament. I cannot. Christ tells us that the Law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms prophecy about him (Luke 24:44). Paul asserts that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. The Bereans were commended for looking for the truths of Christ by studying scripture. The exhortations of the New Testament church to study was a command to study the Tanakh; the New Testament didn't exist yet.
I am not asking these questions as a skeptic, but neither am I entirely comfortable or "ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you" to the problem of pain and suffering. I would like to have a cup of coffee with the author and continue to discuss the thoughts that envade and trouble my mind. I'd like to pick his brain. But, then I remember how often I had to stop and re-read a paragraph just so I could honestly say that I understood what the author was trying to communicate. I don't consider myself dim, but my brain does not always grasp ideas quickly. I am much more deliberate, reflective and slow in my thinking. In the end, I am sure Hart would be exasperated by me. Perhaps it is better that I leave my questions as mysteries; mysteries that only find comfort and rest in the miracle of First Fruits.
Hat Tip to Debbi who blogs at Deb on the Run for recommending this book to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment