Is it possible to acknowledge the presence and sovereignty of God in all of life without portraying God’s love as conditional, or by characterizing God’s love as disciplinary and character-building? I choose to believe so, contrary to those whose God-image seems to require a characterization of God as judgmental, vengeful, and harsh, an image conceded as an only means of affirming God’s total involvement in all of human affairs, an image that seems to be a less thoughtful, yet more acceptable way of explaining life’s anomalies.
Recent articles and conversations in which authors and participants have attempted to explain God’s part in life-destroying events of both natural and human origin strengthen my belief that humans are predisposed to explain life’s anomalies in the context of our individual “God programs,” - our beliefs about who God is and how God works. I believe that our “God programs” are less a matter of divine revelation than a product of our conditioning – what we’ve been taught plus our life experiences – and the very personal needs that our God images fulfill. The revelation part is a conundrum for me since I cannot intellectually accept the notion that a sovereign God would self-reveal via messages subject to differing interpretations or that the “true” message would be delivered to a select and limited audience.
Could it be that the God many of us worship is a creation of our minds that satisfies our need to explain why bad things happen to good people? This, of course, after we’ve defined the meanings of “bad” and “good” in terms that satisfy our needs.
If we believe that God is “out there somewhere, sitting in divine judgment on those who obey or disobey his rules,” a life event that results in indiscriminate destruction of things of value to human beings, including human life, can be an example of God’s harsh and unrelenting judgment. Or, if we believe that God is pure spirit, the essence of all creation, the same disaster may be evidence of a system designed and put in place by a master designer, neutral in its application and effect. Both of these scenarios beg the question of an all powerful creator who loves and cares for the creation, each suggesting a different answer.
To suggest that God is present in the human response to the disaster, evidenced by those who comfort and care for its victims, but not in the forces that caused the disaster, says that the disaster itself is the act of an un-Godly force, an evil force whose purpose is to destroy life. It also suggests that God’s power is limited to responding to the effects of the evil force. Or that God chooses, for whatever reason, to allow the disaster to happen regardless of its consequences. Or that God mandates all natural events according to a grand scheme of life with specific purpose that can be known only by God, yet subject to continuing speculation by humans.
I would suggest that our God images, though enabling us to reconcile disparate understandings of God’s involvement or non-involvement in the vicissitudes of life, are of little value beyond that. Finite humans are not equipped to correctly define the nature, character, and intent of a creator having infinite attributes, regardless of origin and application of a particular theology. Our feeble attempts to define are influenced by our ego needs, and we assign God to humanly constructed boxes customized for our personal use.
I was raised to understand God as loving, caring, and personal. I cannot attribute a life-destroying disaster to such a God unless I acknowledge God as a presence in all of life, no matter how I perceive the effects of this presence. Further, that I acknowledge the existence of a stable system in which divine favoritism is shown toward none, where it rains on the just and the unjust alike, one that does not allow me to interpret God’s love in terms of good things happening to me and mine, or as corrective and character-building discipline.
Regardless of what happens to me or to others, I can still affirm God as loving if I choose to believe that a creation, in all its dimensions, is inherently cared for, loved, by its creator. I can also choose to deny the reality of such a caring creator, but only as I deny this creator’s provision of all that is required to sustain the creation, not in human terms, but by the creator’s terms. The provision is there for me to experience and to share, and is sufficient evidence for me that there is a creator and that the creator cares … for something far greater than me and my limited interests. It is not necessary for me to appropriate this God for personal use. And if I care, I must relate to the creation in ways that support the creator’s sustaining intention, suppressing selfish intent to the best of my ability.
Was God present in the disaster at (fill in the blank)? My answer is “yes,” in its every dimension. Did God cause it? Only in the sense that God created a system within which it could happen. Does God care about the people affected by it? Yes, but God does not deny them the choice of where they will live or how they will conduct their lives, nor intercede to save them from the consequences of their choices. If we choose to think otherwise, are we not scapegoating our God to satisfy our own needs and interests?
Perhaps you see it differently. Please share … for the sake of further enlightenment.
