Heads We Win and Tails God Loses
I know things aren't as simple as many of us Christians say they are but that cuts both ways. Here's a husband and wife, their house caught fire, not only did they lose all their possessions their eleven year old girl was killed and the eight year old boy was burned so severely that his life from now on will be one extended crucifixion. Devastated isn't the word for this couple and some of us go to console and comfort them. Along with our good intentions and hurting hearts we bring truth. "Remember God loves you." But in some ways that only complicates matters beyond measure. If God loves them then why...? We mean well and often we handle ourselves well but very often we're little more than benevolent bunglers that further scald the hearts of poor souls in agony. Still, however difficult it is to swallow in times of torment it's true that God does love us.
Non-believers are also tempted to make it all too simple. Thomas Hardy looked at life's shambolic side and felt sure no God controlled the world. George Bernard Shaw couldn't accept the New Testament teaching on atonement because he could not respect any God that got pleasure out of the death of a child (Jesus) and Somerset Maugham couldn't believe in a God who loves us because he had seen children die of diphtheria. On the other hand men and women like them couldn't believe in God because he didn't bring judgement down on oppressors. Instead he "just stands by" and lets them hurt the defenceless. And then there are those who think that forgiveness of sins offered to all sinners in Jesus Christ is an insult to the deprived and the butchered.
All the pity is in the human heart and God is pitiless. All the righteous indignation is ours while God just stands idly by letting the injustice drag on and on. Then on the other hand, God is an amoral "loving machine" while we humans know how to balance everything out. Harry Blamires was right. There's something wrong about tracing all the diphtheria and insensitivity back to God while claiming all the righteousness and pity is ours.
There's something about that approach that just doesn't ring true. Maybe it's the thought that "bags of chemicals and hormones" can have "pity" or that they can come up with something like "righteousness". Maybe it's the sheer smugness of it all. Then, again, maybe it's that such non-believers can look Jesus right in the eye and speak of God as without mercy or pity or love or righteousness. Perhaps...just perhaps...if non-believers could hear the whole gospel message they might think there's more in it than meets the eye.
No comments:
Post a Comment