Blaming God First

MICHAEL NOVAK

What are we to say about a human condition in which "Nature red in tooth and claw" rears up on its massive hindquarters, and hurls a 30-foot wall of water against the lowlands of eleven of the poorest and most populous nations on earth, including some playgrounds of the rich of Europe and America, and crushes, chokes, and twists away the lives of going past 150,000 human beings?

Truly, the continuing presence of evil in the world — perhaps most acutely when this evil is manifested in unconscious Nature, out of its own laws and processes — is a great scandal to loving, believing Christians.  It is truly hard for them to understand how a kind and gracious Providence can allow such terrible things to happen to human beings.  To so many scores of thousands of human beings.  On such a vast scale.

In some ways, it is easier to understand how individual human beings can do horribly evil deeds.  At least one can point to their free will.  Struggling to find plausible reasons, one recalls one's own irrationalities and sins, murders one has read of in the local papers, etc.

It is true that some evils are so unspeakable and unimaginable that they defy all attempted comparisons to anything in anyone's previous experience — the Holocaust, for example.  How can a good God possibly allow that horror to happen to (in a twofold sense) his own people? But even these we attribute to human agency, however monstrous.  Whereas the dead that have suffered from a naked act of Nature seem somehow to have been stricken by God's own unmediated action.

What can biblically informed believers reply to those who, contemplating the massive destruction and death in today's Asia, blame their God (a God in Whom those who do the blaming do not believe)?

Confronted with this demand — confronted with it, actually, quite often in my lifetime — I think first of this: Since those who ask it do not believe in God, the question is not what it seems to be.  The real point of the question is to get me to groan inwardly by agreeing that the one who thinks he is my superior is correct, after all.  The real point is to get me to deny the reality of God.

The point is even a little more complex.  My taunter does not want me to deny the reality of God on the ground that the assertion of that reality is absurd.  Actually, my taunter holds that everything, at bottom, is absurd.  My taunter really wants to show me that I am like him; and that I too am driven to join him in recognizing the absurd at the bottom of all things.  He wants to prove that he has been smarter all along, and to watch me have to surrender as he has surrendered.  He has given up his faith in reason all the way down, and he wants me to do the same.

My second thought is as follows.  The Bible warns us often of the confrontation with the absurd that each of us who believes in the goodness of the Lord must face, and more than once in our lives.  We see all the time in the Bible that the just are made to suffer, while the unjust live and laugh in plenty, heaping ridicule on the just.  We read of the horrid, unfathomable afflictions that God piles up on his faithful servant, Job.  Job refuses to say that in doing these things to him God is acting justly or kindly; Job knows his own pain, and he refuses to lie.  He refuses to "prettify" God, or to cut God down to human standards.  He knows that God is no sentimental liberal. 

And if Job is the type of "the suffering servant," whose sufferings cannot be explained by his own deeds, and whose sufferings are on the face of it horribly and inexcusably unjust, so also is the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the sinless One, who in forewarning his apostles of the sufferings he will endure on the cross alludes to Job more than once.


Who's Judging Whom?

Stand before the cross.  Look at the body of this suffering servant of God.  Look, perhaps, with eyes opened by Mel Gibson's all but unendurable The Passion.  If this is what God did to His own Son — His own being, with Whom He is one — then what hope is there that we will be treated "nicely"? The God who does this is not "the God of niceness." His scale of grandeur is far different from ours.  One has no sense of Him whatever if one does not feel inner trembling and vast distance. 

No less than the unbeliever or the nihilist does the devout Jew or Christian inhabit the night. But only the believers continue in the silence to utter the unseeing yes of our love. The yes that Ivan Karamazov cannot say in the night Alyosha does say.

He is not a God made in our image.  We are made as (very poor) images of Him — images chiefly in the sense that we experience insight and judgment, decision and love, and that we too have responsibilities.

This is the God who made the vastness of the Alps and the Rockies and the Andes; who knows the silence of jungles no human has yet penetrated; who made all the galaxies beyond our ken; who gave to Mozart and Beethoven and Shakespeare and Milton and Dante and legions of others great talents; who infused life into the eyes of every newborn, and love into the hearts of all lovers; and imagined, created, and expressed love for all the things that He made.  He made all the powers of storms, and all the immense force of earthquakes, and the roiling and tumultuous churning of the oceans.  He imagined all the beautiful melodies we have ever heard, and more that we have not.

God is God
God is our Judge. 
We are not His judge.

The question is not, "Does God measure up to our (liberal, compassionate, self-deceived) standards?"  The question is, "Will we learn — in silence and in awe at the far-beyond-human power of nature — how great, on a far different scale from ours, is God's love?"

It would be the greatest and most obscene of illusions for a man, any man, to imagine that he has greater love for a child mangled in the oily, dark waters of the recent tsunami than the Creator of that child has.  It would be like Ivan Karamazov being unable to forgive God so long as one single child anywhere went to bed at night crying in loneliness and in pain.  Who is Karamazov to think that his own love for that child — a purely abstract, speculative, hard-case, counterexample love — is greater than that of the child's Creator?

The tapestry on which God weaves human existence is not the tapestry within the framework of time that we experience.  As we do not comprehend the power of nature (especially nowadays, when we live so far removed from it, so protected from it), even more we do not begin to comprehend the love and goodness of God.

The truth is, the sight and smell of awful human death is sometimes more than we can take.  Perhaps we should feel confidence in the power of God's love, but we do not see it.  All we feel is the night.  Our darkness is as keen as that of the unbeliever and the nihilist.

Yet in that darkness, we the believers alone (not the unbeliever or the nihilist) feel betrayed by One whom we love.  We alone feel anguish because we cannot understand.

But it is not as if we had not often before bumped into the limits of our understanding, and recognized nonetheless that there are undeniable glimmerings of powers and presences we know not of.  And, like Job, we refuse to deny the power of the goodness and light which we do see, their power to go out into the night in which we cannot now see.

It does seem that the Creator is not always kind, not even just, within the bounded space that we experience.  It does seem that the Creator acts with undeniable cruelty.  In our time, we have seen unimaginable suffering.  Like Job, we cannot deny what we see.

Neither can we deny the Light, which is what makes the absurd seem absurd.  Only in contrast to Light is the absurd absurd.  Otherwise it is only a brute matter of fact.

No less than the unbeliever or the nihilist does the devout Jew or Christian inhabit the night.  But only the believers continue in the silence to utter the unseeing yes of our love.  The yes that Ivan Karamazov cannot say in the night Alyosha does say. 

 

 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Michael Novak. "Blaming God First." National Review (January 5, 2005).

Reprinted with permission of the National Review

To subscribe to National Review Digital go here.  To subscribe to National Review print edition go here

THE AUTHOR

Michael Novak, the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute was the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize.  He has written some 28 books including, most recently Living the Call: An Introduction to the Lay Vocation, No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers, Washington's God, as well as The Universal Hunger for Liberty: Why the Clash of Civilizations Is Not Inevitable, The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, Tell Me Why: A Father Answers His Daughter's Questions About God (with his daughter Jana Novak), and On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding

Copyright © 2005 National Review Online




Subscribe to CERC's Weekly E-Letter

 

 

Not all articles published on CERC are the objects of official Church teaching, but these are supplied to provide supplementary information.