The not-God of I35, Job, and John Piper
My online friend Bill Kinnon has gotten himself into a bit of a row over the subject of God’s sovereignty with this post at his blog Kinnon.tv. In it, he not-so-gently mocks John Piper’s comments about God’s supposed role in the I35 bridge collapse a couple years ago in Minneapolis. Here’s the shot he fired across every neo-Calvinist’s bow:
I do not believe in a God who foreordains every action, but in a God who is not surprised by anything. As an example, the collapse of the I35 bridge in Minneapolis/St. Paul was not part of God’s sovereign plan – no matter what Piper told his young daughter.
Daryl Dash got into the action by announcing a subsequent, yet still impending, blog series on the topic and Bill seems to enjoy jousting with others in the comments section resulting in this rebuke by another reader:
God has foreordained everything to happen. The Scriptures are blatant about this side of the truth revealed about God’s sovereignty. Just because you can’t logically conceive of this as compatible with suffering in this present fallen world doesn’t mean you have to denigrate God’s pre-determination of all things.
Here’s my question: Doesn’t Jesus’ gospel – that is, the pronouncement of God’s inaugurated kingdom (i.e. Matt 4:23) – fundamentally presume the existence of a realm in which God is not king, where his rule and reign are not?
I would say that suffering, tragedy, and death are the unavoidable consequence of love in a world divorced from obedience. Without love, there is no freedom; without freedom there is no disobedience; without disobedience there is no suffering. The only way to end suffering without obedience is to end freedom, which is to end love. Hence, God, in order to preserve love, has withdrawn intentionally from the realm of human agency. Further, the only way to end suffering and preserve love is to cultivate obedience – which is its own unique experience of suffering altogether (Heb 5:8). Thereby, among us, evil became king, and remains king for some in spite of the inauguration of the new kingdom. Isn’t that why Jesus taught that the way of the kingdom is death (Mark 8:34)? To enter the Kingdom is to enter the suffering of obedience that requires death of self.
There are different kinds of suffering – some good, some bad – but most of the thought-experiments used in the discussion of God’s sovereignty only represent one kind of suffering or another. Moreover, there are a multitude of positions on that spectrum for God to inhabit; a God of malice, a God of sadism, a God of indifference, a God of vengeance, a God of justice, a God of impotence, and more. Most people’s examples seem to intentionally illustrate only one of those versions of God (Piper’s story seems to be intended to represent the God of vengeance, but sadly comes across like a God of sadism – which is why it’s so easy to dislike).
But I see no biblical precedent for the kind of cruel, petty God that simply looks the other way during calamity in order to mete out vengeance (and it’s a mistake to build an entire theological doctrine on the specifics of Job, or any other poetic literature for that matter – which is why Psalms and Proverbs make for poor doctrinal foundations as well). Nor do I see any precedent for the sadistic God who causes evil in order to establish fear (no, I don’t think that’s what’s happening in Joshua, although Joshua disturbs me profoundly).
I do see a God who disciplines – and there’s no getting around the fact that discipline IS suffering. I also see a God who wars against his enemies, and war tends to result in suffering. I also recognize a God in scripture who sees evil (not mere suffering) and responds in anger, frustration, and sorrow, as well as a restraining of himself so love might be preserved in the short run while the plan of righteousness and redemption through Christ and the Church restores goodness and peace in the long run.
But I also think it’s worth noting that Jesus didn’t seem to subscribe to the simplistic notions mentioned earlier. He seems to acknowledge that there is a place where God’s rule and reign do not yet have full potency (specifically, here on earth – Matt 6), and he apparently thinks God depends on human agency to advance the kingdom (Matt 10). Yet, those in God’s kingdom are securely cared for to the point where we need not worry about anything (again, Matt 6). And, the people of God will suffer in positive ways at the hand of God (Matt 11:30) and in evil ways at the hands of the enemy (Matt 5:3-11). So too, there is a costly price for the kingdom (Matt 13, more suffering), even if it IS worth paying. Finally, God is obviously perfectly willing to punish the wicked (Matt 22:12-13).
My point is simply that we tend to muddy and mix all these shades of suffering and sovereignty when discussing this subject. We drive our examples to logical extremes in order to make our case – but scripture never really does that, because scripture always seems to reflect the complexity of real life. God – and life – should never be boiled-down or blown-up rhetorically in order to support our doctrinal pet peeves. Good is good, and evil is evil, and when we speak of “God” we are, by definition, speaking of that to which we ascribe all good.
Any other definition of God is literally “not-God,” and calling people to worship “not-God” strains their faith to the breaking point by asking them to adore and ally themselves with a being that has presumably caused excruciating evil and death for millions of people throughout history, including people they personally knew and loved. For those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness sake,” it’s hard enough to love a God who hasn’t intervened across millenniums to stamp out evil once and for all (yes, yes, I know why, It’s because he’d stamp out us too). Asking them to also accept a God who capriciously causes evil is more than they can bear. Therefore, let us not slander God by ascribing to him all manner of spectacular disasters and diseases that maim and destroy goodness, peace, and life just so we can preserve a few tulips.
Is God responsible for evil? Yes; by choosing to love us. Are we responsible for evil? Yes; by choosing to disobey. In between these two truths there are two worlds – one of brokenness and one of perfection – and for the time being we are caught in the middle.
Update: At least one or two of you know that I’m particularly fond of Greg Boyd’s writing. He responded to John Piper’s original post back in 2007 with an excellent retort, doing a far better job than I. Here it is: Why the 35W bridge collapsed.
Wow! Fantastic. I will link to this in the body of my post.