By Be Scofield. Crossposted from Tikkun Magazine
Pat Robertson’s latest claim that God punished Haiti for making a pact with the devil was rightly condemned by religious and political leaders across the spectrum. However, there is an irony here in that many of those leaders or religious laypeople who saw the cruelty in Robertson’s remark actually share his same underlying theology which is as equally disturbing. The disagreement lies in the timing and particular expression of the theology, but the essence of Robertson’s cruel statement is shared by many of those religious people who condemned it. The problem for many was not Robertson’s God–one that is insensitive, cruel and sadistic but rather it was the specific reason he posited for God allowing or commanding what “he” did. But let’s be clear–many people believe that God did have a reason for allowing the quake–albeit different than Robertson’s.
Anyone who believes in an omnipotent God who could have intervened to stop the Haiti earthquake is making the same moral claim about God as Robertson did. He gave his reason as to why God allowed the earthquake while others simply say that God is too awesome for us to know “his” true reasons. But ultimately the premise is the same–God makes conscious choices on a daily basis and allows (for whatever reason) people to suffer and die but has the power to save them if “he” wanted. Additionally as in the recent case of the man who was pulled from the rubble 11 days after the quake, some believe that this was a “miracle” of God as one of French rescue workers claimed. It is mind boggling to me to imagine how a God could have allowed perhaps over 100,000 people to suffer and die–in some cases being buried alive but yet choose to use “his” power to save a few people a week or so after. It is even more troubling to me how this God could be in any way, shape or form be considered good. It would seem more ethically consistent to posit a God that makes choices to allow people to die but to be able to accurately name this as bad. If a man allowed his child to be buried alive in a building no one in their right mind would excuse this by saying “he is too awesome for us to understand his reasons.” And this person certainly wouldn’t be called good, yet this is what many claim about God. Our sense of morality must apply to God because it is the only one that we have. We don’t have some extra worldly, supernatural way to say that in some cases the act of allowing someone to be buried alive is good. But yet this is the foundational theology of many religious people. God is good even if “he” is killing people or allowing others to die.
In a debate between atheist and former evangelical Christian Dan Barker and the Christian Pastor Douglas Wilson the problem with this disturbing morality is illustrated. Wilson is asked by Barker if it is good that God ordered the killing of the Amalekite men, women, children and babies in the Hebrew Bible. 1 Sam 15:3 NIV “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” His response is scary, but granted it is consistent with his ethic that everything God does is good:
Barker: You think it was right?
Wilson: The people of God were blessed by this when they were conquering the enemies of God. And the one who took the children of the enemies of God and bashed them on the rock was blessed by God. That’s in the Bible and I have no apologies for it.
Barker: Do you think that’s good morality? Do you think that’s not a cruel thing to do? Do you think its a good thing to do?
Wilson: God is the definition of good. We begin all our reasoning from this position. We reason from what God says to our morality
Wilson has also tried to be morally consistent in respect to other aspects of the Bible. From “The Controversialist” in Christianity Today:
But when I asked what he thought of the death penalty for homosexual acts suggested in Leviticus 20:13, he did not shy away from the theonomic hard line that disturbs many Christians. “You can’t apply Scripture woodenly,” he says. “You might exile some homosexuals, depending on the circumstances and the age of the victim. There are circumstances where I’d be in favor of execution for adultery. … I’m not proposing legislation. All I’m doing is refusing to apologize for certain parts of the Bible.”
While Wilson is not in the mainstream of evangelical Christianity he is a prolific speaker, author and prominent debater and trying to push his way into the mainstream. You can watch him and three conservative Christians (Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig & Jim Dennison) debate Christopher Hitchens. And Wilson is featured in the new documentary movie “Collision” which is a series of debates between him and Hitchens.
Robertson’s and Wilson’s understanding of God can lead to the disturbing claims about morality they make and encourage others to follow suit. But it actually points to another layer of irony. Their morality undermines the common attempt by right-wing conservative Christians to brand progressive religious people, atheists or the political left as not having strong moral principles compared with their supposedly objective morality. In every case I am willing to say that the killing of a 5 year old child is wrong. But yet this simple objective moral claim cannot even be accepted by Wilson. And if God ordered the Haiti earthquake it must be good according to Robertson’s moral reasoning. Therefore anyone who posits the idea that whatever God does is good and if their God has killed, tortured…etc then there is no foundation from which to base morality. Otherwise it would be impossible to examine all of the violence in the world and determine which of it was man’s doing and which was God’s. Children are killed in warfare all across the globe–if a moral principle can assert that in some cases this may be good because God has ordered it, how on earth do we determine whether or not it is in each case? Perhaps all abortion is God’s doing. I make this point to illustrate how Christians or anti-choice people could be mistakenly criticizing something that is God’s will. Perhaps “he” is trying to teach us something. The point here is that it is impossible to create a consistent morality if an external agent such as God can violate every principle but still be considered good. What is good and what is bad in this system of morality? How could one seek to learn from God if “he” has committed acts of violence or fails prevents such unnecessary suffering? It seems as if Robertson’s and Wilson’s morality is neither objective nor moral.
The problem of suffering and evil is perhaps one of the most difficult questions for any religious person believing in an omnipotent God has to answer. Many liberal Christians and other spiritual practitioners reject this concept of a personal, all-powerful God and embrace an impersonal creative force of love. Just because God cannot stop the Haiti earthquake doesn’t mean that the God as love doesn’t exist. Just because God is not a white man in the sky with a beard doesn’t mean people can’t be in relation to the divine spirit of the cosmos. But any theology that posits an omnipotent God must answer the difficult questions. Why does God find you that parking space but yet fail to stop tens of thousands of people from starvation? Has God ever stopped other natural disasters? If so, why has God chosen to stop some natural disasters but not the Haiti earthquake? If God has killed people or allows people to suffer when God has the power to stop it, under what moral principle can this be considered moral? Or consistent? Isn’t God responsible for all suffering, death and tragedy if God makes a conscious choice to let some of it occur? Can you name a few explicit examples of where God intervened in the world in the last 100 years?
God does not have the power to intervene physically in the world. Perhaps we live in a universe of spirit, love, divinity…etc call it what you will. Perhaps we can tap into this to become renewed and transformed–born again in the creative potential of love. If God did have the power to stop tragedies and didn’t I would be very disappointed, disturbed and frightened. The sooner we critically reflect on and examine the faulty moral reasoning behind the concept of an omnipotent God the sooner people like Pat Robertson and Douglas Wilson will stop making these sorts of moral gaffes.
Comments