(Cross-posted at The Catholic Blues)
Over the past three days, I’ve had my 1000% daily recommended dose of ‘Pope’: waving “hi” and “bye” at the National Shrine, attending the mass at Nationals Stadium, reading his flurry of speeches/addresses/homilies over and over again, and most importantly – praying that the Holy Spirit will open my heart to learning from our Church and its leader. But I wasn’t quite prepared for the opening salvo of our Holy Spirit, coming in the Pope’s words at the White House:
“Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad.”
These words crushed me.
How could the Pope repeat United States propaganda, and express admiration for US bloodshed? I racked my mind for ways to interpret his words in another way, but I couldn’t. Not in that context. Not at the White House with the President standing next to him. Not as the Iraq war rages on. The Pope meant what he said, but not as propaganda. He spoke sincerely. He marvels at American monuments and sees those who “sacrificed their lives defense of freedom”. Pope Benedict looks at our country and sees . . . goodness. When I look at our country, I see . . . evil. I want the Pope to condemn war and abortion, not to call our country ‘great’ and ‘religious’. I want brimstone and fire and words of fury! But from the mouth and heart of our Pope come nothing but goodness.
I have so much to learn.
After a great deal of reflection and prayer, my heart has moved, my neck has bent. I have seen something startling: we live in a society where “defense of life” and “nonviolence” are mostly mutually exclusive, and because the defense of life must take priority over a commitment to nonviolence, most Christians are duty-bound to defend life with the least amount of violence possible.
Did I just write that? I did. But only after three days of gut-wrenching prayer!
I am not suggesting that violence is good, or even Christian. I am suggesting, however, that the circumstances of our society require us to choose defense of life over nonviolence. In other words – if the only way I can defend life is to use a gun, then I must use a gun.
Those familiar with nonviolence and theology will hear echos of the “fallen world” defense of violence in my thoughts. But here’s where I depart from such thinking: Jesus Christ has redeemed the world, and has sent us into the world with his Holy Spirit. This fallen world can be transformed. And we are the ones called to transform it.
But at present, our fallen society has few practical, concrete, and readily available means of nonviolently defending life. Boycotts will not save us from a bullet to the head. Strikes will not stop robbers from breaking into our homes. Nonviolent communication will not stop those who do not wish to communicate. We have no nonviolent alternatives to police forces or militaries. We have no nonviolent alternatives to courts and prisons. Nonviolent means of defending life are mostly confined to idealistic exhortations to “love your enemy and trust in God’s grace to work miracles.”
Nonviolent means of defending life must be reasonable, passing the common sense rule, being as readily available as the gun in Target, or a call to 911. To criticize those who use violence to defend life when there are no other ways to defend life is . . . well . . . possibly scandalous.
To summarize, Gandhi said:
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
Instead of offering concrete ways of defending home and family without violence, I have condemned all violence in every situation. I forced people into a corner – demanding they renounce violence while giving them nothing in its place – asking them to be “like a worm at the bidding of a bully.” I have fought to show violence as wrong in every situation, but never considered that violence could be wrong yet relatively legitimate. In a not-yet-redeemed society, the evil of violence may be the least wrong choice, and our duty.
My advocacy of nonviolence has consisted in saying, “no, no, no!” to America. But our Pope tells us that Christianity is not “no, no, no,” but is “yes, yes, yes!” All his words and actions reverberate within the great “yes” that is Christ our hope. Not one word of “no” passed through his lips over the past three days, even as he spoke of evil. Instead, he proposed solutions aimed at transforming our society into one of peace and justice – a world where men and women can finally embrace nonviolence, “a world where it is easier to be good.”
It is time for me to do the same.
It’s amazing what a Pope can do. I feel like I’ve been through a war, and that this little reflection is but a brief respite. But thank God, and praise Him. He is GOOD.
Updated clarification: I don’t feel like I’ve turned 180, even if it might seem that way from what I’ve written. The development of my thought isn’t a 180 turn. It’s more like a 360. I am not saying that bloodshed will always be necessary. Just the opposite.
I believe in nonviolence. I hate violence. I think it is evil. But I understand now why it is legitimate for many (if not most) in our not-yet-redeemed society, where violence is seen as the only option. It puts the burden on me, and others who have taken to heart “love of enemy” as the nucleus of the Christian revolution, to help build a society where nonviolence is available as a concrete solution to the fight against evil. More than anything, I feel free to pursue and promote nonviolence in ways I never could before.
A very thoughtful post. I hope we all aspire to listen to the word of the Church, and if necessary bend. This was bravely thought and bravely written.
In defense of non-violence, however, I would say this:
While I, at least, believe that you have reached a more balanced understanding of Church teaching on the occasional necessity of using force to protect the common good, we should at the same time never underestimate the power of those who are called to offer themselves up to the calling of complete non-violence. Those who, while struggling to retain a true Christian love of neighbor, are forced to use for to defence the innocent should not be condemned — I do not think that those who feel the calling to be as lambs before the lion should be condemned as useless in any sense.
I agree. Nonviolence is infinitely more powerful than violence, and violence – even if legitimate in the hands of those persons or peoples who lack training and understanding of nonviolence – is still a lesser evil that must be conditioned according to the Church’s teachings.
I feel my head spinning. :) Time for food and prayer, and more thoughts later . . .
Ditto Darwin. I’ll pray for you Nate…I know first hand what it’s like to come to a conclusion that is opposite or distant from what was previously held – I’ve had to do it on a number of things over the years, and odds are it’s going to happen again. It would seem as long as we’re willing to accept truth as we find it, we’re moving closer to Christ.
Thanks, Rick. I don’t feel like I’ve turned 180, even if it might seem that way from what I’ve written. I believe in nonviolence. I hate violence. I think it is evil. But I understand now why it is legitimate for many (if not most) in our not-yet-redeemed society, where violence is the only option (or so it seems). It puts the burden on me, and others who have taken to heart “love of enemy” as the nucleus of the Christian revolution, to help build a society where nonviolence is available as a concrete solution to the fight against evil.
More than anything, I feel free to pursue and promote nonviolence in ways I never could before.
Nate,
As usual, I admire the honesty and integrity with which you encounter the Gospel and the teachings of our popes.
I’m preparing a moral theology paper on non-violence and just war, in large part inspired by your three-part post from the past.
It seems to me (for the time being) that the Christian who is in an intimate communal and personal relationship with Christ who is our hope and our peace cannot respond in violence. However, one who is not prepared, who has not practiced, non-violent and loving responsed will not succeed in doing so, just as one who is not trained in violence will not succeed.
Furthermore, in our times people do not have that intimate relationship with Christ, a relationship which is performative, therefore it is better for them, legitimate for then to love their families or country with violent defense. However, it is never good or holy. And thus, it is our grave responsibility and duty, indeed our vocation as Christians to be witnesses to non-violent love in Christ our hope and also to prophetically evangelize our families, societies, etc.
This witness and evangelization is ultimately motivated by love, but also by our understanding of the universal call to holiness to sainthood. Christian are not called to have good human formation alone, but to have good spiritual formation as well. We are called to saints, and saints love their enemies, even to the death.
So while we can affirm the legitimate violent defense of others so those who know no better (just as we can affirm the potential salvaiton of non-Christians who serve the God of the Truth to extent that he has be revealed to them) we must call our brethren to respond non-violently to conflict.
A moving, and bravely revealing, post. We must all be willing to change our biases when encountered by Christ. Thank you for the reminder.
I think I would have liked better if you had kept more of your stiff neck. The reality of the USA, which you set forth so well in your first paragraph, is something quite different from the idealized nonviolence of a Gandhi. I wish Pope Benedict had spoken of the reality,
and had used the opportunity to speak about the violation of Just War criteria, not to mention the horrors of torture, that are happening today.
God bless you, Nate. This is something we are all called to do and it is hard. To listen, and to pray, and to be open to conversion.
Nate-
This is an excellent post, and fwiw I you and Michael I. have both given me much to think about on this topic (even if it doesn’t always show in my posts and comments).
I think I need to go watch the Mission yet again. :)
[...] A brave and thoughtful post by my pacifist buddy Nate. PermaLink | | Trackback/Pingback (0) [...]
The Pope is one of that vanishing generation who remembers the horrors of Nazism first hand. And he was also a POW – held by American troops. That gives him a rather different perspective on those “who sacrificed their lives for freedom” than those of us who are fortunate enough not to live under totalitarianism might have.
It is indeed difficult to question one’s own beliefs and assumptions. You’re a brave man, Nate.
One soul touched…
This remarkable post by a pacifist honestly recounts how wall-to-wall Pope this week has caused him profound rethinking of his world-view and an unexpected change of heart towards the responsibilities attached to freedom. Its relation to feminine-geniu…
Bravely said Nate. One of the hardest things in the world is to reconsiderer a heart-felt postion and that takes a lot of moral courage. Too many of us, and I consider myself squarely in that category, would fail to have that courage.
Great post, Nate. I think the Pope has given us much to ponder and pray over in terms of relinquishing our preconceptions of his liturgical preferences and politics.
Mr Wildermuth, it takes a strong man to admit when he has changed his mind on something as fundamental as this.
I took a right flaying here for my position regarding the use of violence for self defense. I hold no grudges for that… I kind of enjoyed it. But after reading your post, it sounds like you may now understand where I am coming from.
I do not look for confrontation. I do not seek to harm anyone. But I prepare for the possibility that it may fall to me to protect me and mine from violent attack. It is the nature of the world we live in… sad, but true.
I doff my cap to you, sir. Not because I agree with your change of mind… but because you had the courage to post it publicly.
Nate
This goes along well with my view (as you probably remember it) but also what is said by some of the greatest workers for peace in the 20th century (like Thich Nhat Hanh). The point is to be a peacemaker through and in justice; and always with the focus on peace and all that it requires; but it also recognizes the fallen nature of the world and what that means.
Nate,
I also appreciate your post and your honesty. I don’t want to be argumentative, because you are able to sustain your own reflections, which I’m sure will continue.
However, I would ask you:
what basis is there for saying that “defense of life” takes precedence over “non-violence”?
Jesus and the martyrs who followed him lived in a fallen world also. And they decided that certain things — like following the way and the truth to true life — took precedence over defending _this_ life.
Stanley Hauerwas says, in his great essay “Abortion Theologically Understood,” that the pro-life movement has been hurt by its insistence on on seeing life-as-such as an absolute value. It is the kind of life that matters. And true life is often lived by relinquishing our attachment to this life.
Hauerwas’ point is that life itself doesn’t matter — it matters only because it is a gift from God. And when we realize that our own lives are gifts, we realize that they can’t be clung to. A gift is no longer a gift when it is held possessively. It retains its gift-character only when it is passed on. That means we need to be ready — if necessary — to give away the gift of our lives. Not that death is good. But certainly we cannot cling to life unthinkingly, if we are to remain aware of its character as (like Jesus) coming from God so as to return to Him.
Abortion is a refusal of a gift from God. Our lives are gifts.
In our own lives, we can — sometimes — best receive the gift of life by following the martyrs and turning our lives into living sacrifices, into enfleshed words of praise to the Giver.
I’m not disagreeing with you about the sometime necessity of violence.
I agree that reflexive, unthinking non-violence can become a kind of rejection of thought and history. But the idea that “defense of life” takes _priority_ over non-violence is an idea that needs further qualification.
G Alkon
I think you are right about nuance is needed — although I think it is more of a matter of the spirit vs letter going on. I read Nate’s post without looking for the detail, and you are right, someone could abuse it through a very literal reading.
I also think one should always put peace, peacemaking, and the engagement of the real causes of evil in the world need to always be on the forefront, and if so, then the times for actual “defense” through violence should be as common in the world as Pope John Paul II thought the death penalty should be….
Thanks, Henry. I think you summed it up. I’m still reflecting, so the wording may change, but I think I’ve simply come to embrace Catholic teaching entirely – teachings that propose nonviolence while affirming legitimate violent self-defense in the interim between the redemption of our society – an interim that is only as short as we Christians make it.
Challenging and inspiring, Nate.
Nate,
You are a man of deep integrity.
Perhaps one clarification might help. The use of force can be either morally justified or morally unjustified. Violence is the unjust use of force. When the use of force is not unjust, then it is not violence, merely the use of force in a situation that requires it or accepts it as a morally permissible response. E.g., someone coming in to attack my daughter will be met with the use of force on my part, a use of force I would consider just.
To consider all use of force as violence muddies the philosophical waters of this discussion and makes it seem as if the moral distinctions used for all other acts do not apply here.
G. Alkon~
Jesus, especially, and the martyrs, made the choice of non-violence over preservation of the OWN lives. I read the “defense of life” to also consider the defense of *others* lives. Would Jesus condone allowing innocents (realizing we are all still sinners, even if in small ways only) to be the victims of violence if the only way to save *their* lives if through an act of violence? It’s one thing, I think, to take a stand about a non-violent response to violence when *YOU ALONE* will suffer as a result of a violent act. It is quite another to allow *OTHERS* to suffer because of your unbending position on non-violence. I am not a violent person, but I am glad there are those out there (law enforcement, our military and other, private citizens) who are willing to stand between innocent people and those who would use violence against those innocents.
W~
Excellent point. I guess that’s what I was trying to say, only I think you said it much better…
Nate, since you link to ChesterBelloc website maybe you’ve read the post of an essay by Fr. McNabb titled On False Pacifism. If not I highly recommend it.
Nate Wildermuth on Benedict XVI, pacifism and “…
Praise to Benedict XVI for teaching by the force of his words and presence what positively reams of blogging and combox debating could not. And to Nate as well for his thoughtful post (and courage in publishing it)….
Excellent examination, however tough it may be.
I’m noticing a lack of the West Virginian in this post.
Perhaps one clarification might help. The use of force can be either morally justified or morally unjustified. Violence is the unjust use of force. When the use of force is not unjust, then it is not violence, merely the use of force in a situation that requires it or accepts it as a morally permissible response. E.g., someone coming in to attack my daughter will be met with the use of force on my part, a use of force I would consider just.
“W” — my thoughts exactly as well.
I think that I need to clarify that the development of my thought isn’t a 180 turn. It’s more like a 360. I am not saying that bloodshed will always be necessary. Just the opposite.
Christ has broken into our world, and through his Church, he is saving our lives and communities. To the extend that we grasp this salvation, we will discover and create nonviolent options of defending life – modeled upon the life of Christ – founded upon compassionate suffering and merciful forgiveness.
Moreover, we are all called to nonviolence! We are called to make necessary violence unnecessary. This doesn’t mean praying and waiting for the Last Judgment. It means praying, and acting today to make nonviolence a reality.
“Stanley Hauerwas says, in his great essay “Abortion Theologically Understood,” that the pro-life movement has been hurt by its insistence on on seeing life-as-such as an absolute value. It is the kind of life that matters. And true life is often lived by relinquishing our attachment to this life.
Hauerwas’ point is that life itself doesn’t matter — it matters only because it is a gift from God. And when we realize that our own lives are gifts, we realize that they can’t be clung to. A gift is no longer a gift when it is held possessively. It retains its gift-character only when it is passed on. That means we need to be ready — if necessary — to give away the gift of our lives.”
i.e. when someone defends the life of another by intervening, perhaps with force, and risking the loss of their own life. Is this not the most Christlike of actions?
Non-violence works best when the risk of violence has been reduced by order, brought about with the knowledge that there will be enFORCEment by those assigned that task legitimately by the community and the law (law enforcement and self-defense).
That’s what Ghandi’s ‘Doctrine of the Sword’ was all about. Glad you referred to it.
I didn’t intend to suggest that I disagree, exactly, with Nate’s comments; and I don’t necessarily disagree with what others have said here. I, too, believe that the use of force to protect the defenseless is sometimes necessary.
But I did want to question the _opposition_ between non-violence and defense of life.
And I would say something else: the use of force may be justified; but Jesus does not offer us much guidance on this issue.
The emphasis of Jesus’ teachings is, to the contrary, on non-violent compassion, compassion to the point of co-suffering and death. When we talk about the justified use of force, we can’t look to Jesus for help. I would certainly never simply denounce the calibrated use of force to protect those in need of life-saving help. But Jesus’ teachings say nothing about when it is or isn’t OK to take up the sword.
Jesus does say, many different times, that following him will be very costly and painful — painful not just to his followers, but also to the families and friends of those followers. And Jesus does not “protect” his own disciples, but draws them into an enterprise that — he knows — will get them killed.
G. Alkon~
Jesus did have what one might consider a “violent outburst”, with the money-changers in the temple. How would you reconcile that incident with teaching of compassion for others?
Also, Jesus did draw his disciples into what was a life-threatening enterprise. But, his disciples, and the martyrs who have come since, followed willingly, I’d say in most, if not all, cases, knowing the possible consequences. Anyone who goes into, say, law enforcement, the military or firefighting, will go into it knowing what the consequence to them may one day be, too. But, they do it for the greater good, to serve others by risking themselves. That is a noble calling, I think.
Yelling and shouting can be quite compassionate. Some could even say corporal punishment with a rehabilitative goal can be compassionate. But inflicting serious physical injury — even for the highest goal — isn’t compassionate (at least not to the one who is harmed). Obviously sometimes inflicting such harm is necessary. I’m not against it. I’m just saying that Jesus doesn’t give us much guidance in this respect. What we can do, I think, is imagine our acts unfolding before His gaze and ask what his judgment would be.
“Yelling and shouting can be quite compassionate. Some could even say corporal punishment with a rehabilitative goal can be compassionate. But inflicting serious physical injury — even for the highest goal — isn’t compassionate (at least not to the one who is harmed).”
It may well be compassionate for someone who had been threatened or even harmed by the one now having force applied to them, even if that force brings serious physical injury.
How you set this up as being a scale where compassion is diminished as force is increasingly applied is interesting, but I’d have to say also flawed. Force is just an action. It has consequences. Whether or not those consequences are ethical and just depends on the circumstances surrounding it. I think the view you just outlined gets to what I think the root of the problem is with many pacifists position. It is not violence (or to be neutral- force) that is bad. Force is a tool, like a hammer. If I hammer nails, it is not a weapon. If I hammer your head, it’s a weapon. If I hammer the head of a man intending to do immediate harm to my family, I am using that weapon justly. Too often, force itself is held to be an evil, yet it is not. How force is applied is the ethical question at hand. The circumstances and results, unlike the force itself, are something we can review under the lessons of Jesus. Are we helping our fellow man? Are we putting others before ourselves? Would we think it just if like action were taken against us if we were the opponent? I think it is reasonable to answer ‘yes’ to these questions more often than many would like to admit.
I know that applying force to save someone from violence is compassionate to the one being saved.
What I said above is that it is not compassionate to the one committing the evil act of violence.
We may not think the perpetrator of cruel and inhumane violence deserves compassion. But Jesus taught us to be compassionate to the perpetrators of such violence — by turning the other cheek and letting them hurt us more.
Now, I know, and I’ve said a few times, that this teaching doesn’t help us deal with the issue of when and how to use force to protect innocents. And I am certainly not against the use of force for those purposes. Such force can be used ethically.
But Jesus was not an ethicist. His teaching goes against all forms of ethics and natural morality, and calls for his followers to give themselves up to violence.
Again, I am certainly NOT for allowing criminals, etc., to hurt innocent men, women, and children. I am just saying that Jesus’ teachings don’t give us much guidance on how to use force ethically to provide such protection.
The best we can do is imagine our acts unfolding before his loving, crucified gaze, and ask what he would say. His precepts provide no practical counsel on this matter.
I’m noticing a lack of the West Virginian in this post.
I’ve had friends in town all weekend and just got to this post, smart ass.
Bravely said Nate. One of the hardest things in the world is to reconsider a heart-felt position and that takes a lot of moral courage. Too many of us, and I consider myself squarely in that category, would fail to have that courage.
The bogus thing about so many of these congratulatory comments is that Nate’s real reconsideration and change of heart came with his original rejection of violence. Where were your congratulatory comments when Nate blogged so much about that change of heart, a change of heart that obviously has permanence?
It’s clear also that so many of you are taking Nate’s post to mean that he has changed his mind about nonviolence. The way I read it, it’s clear he has not.
Unlike Nate, I was disappointed that we didn’t hear many “no’s” from the Pope. True, Christianity is primarily a “yes,” but certainly it involves “no’s” as well. The Pope spoke several “no’s” from the Vatican regarding war since the start of his pontificate, yet when he was here in the heart of the empire, we heard little of that.
I appreciate Nate’s charity in interpreting what the Pope said in his speech at the White House. I too believe that what he said about u.s. monuments was not a simple repetition of u.s. propaganda. Nevertheless, the Pope’s words there were hardly prophetic, and in that sense I think Nate’s interpretation of the speech might express a bit of papal idealism.
Hmm, I thought I was pretty clear that Jesus ethic of ‘Do unto others’, and ‘Love God with all your heart’ could be perfectly consistent with the application of force. How compassionate can I be if I allow the application of violence to innocents? While it may be true that in stopping that violence, by force if necessary, I may not be so compassionate to the perpetrator, isn’t it possible that the sum of these actions yield a more compassionate outcome than to simply stand aside and ‘turn the other cheek’?
I say yes.
Let me ask you this: If Jesus were so against the application of force in general, why when he was hung on the cross and had the perfect stage to denounce such force (including that being applied to the criminals hung with him) he did not? A curious omission if you read Jesus as you seem to. When the ‘good’ criminal responded to the mocking criminal that Jesus did not deserve to be there, but they did, why did Jesus not contradict him? Could it be that Jesus (as many believe) agreed with the previous precepts set forth in the Old Testament that the state had the right to apply force on behalf of it’s citizenry, in fact, had a duty to do so? Are you saying that Jesus would be against our formation of police forces and military forces?
I’m also not sure this is true:
“What I said above is that it is not compassionate to the one committing the evil act of violence.”
Are you certain? I know that in the times in my life where I really started to get astray, the figurative ‘kick in the rear’ was the most compassionate thing anyone could do for me. If I had gotten really out of control, I dare say someone stopping me from doing something horrible to someone else (even if by force) would be doing me a great act of compassion, saving me from the guilt I’d later feel from my bad actions. From my experience, what would normally be considered acts of compassion (empathy, attempts to ‘reach out’) were usually less successful, and in fact I would say at times counterproductive. As a parent, I know that there are times when the most compassionate thing I can do to my children is discipline them (no I don’t spank), or say ‘no’- not always seen as acts of compassion per se, but in the long run, I’d say they are. So I think you’ve built a possibly dangerous idea about what compassion is.
Douglas, we must distinguish between force and violence. Discipline, even forceful and painful discipline, is not, I don’t think, what Nate, (or Michael I?) mean by violence. Violence is the use of force which renders undue harm and violated the dignity of the person. Is it ever compassionate to kill someone? I say no. If it not compassionate to spare someone from great physical evil (suffering) with Euthanasia, then it is not compassionate to prevent someone from some great moral evil with violence.
Furthermore, our faith and indeed our hope (for ourselves, our children and those who cannot defend themselves, and our especially our enemies) should not, as a Christian, be placed violence, or guns, or any display of power or might, rather our faith and our hope are Christ. Either I believe that violence saves or I believe that Jesus saves, which is it?
Finally, I think that Jesus refrained from using his power to violently defeat his persecutors speaks much more clearly of the nonviolent force of his kenotic love. Not only did he choose not to use violence to save himself. He chose not to use violence (or to commend the use of violence) to save his apostles, whom he knew would share his fate.
** Note, I am not advocating passivism, which stands by and does nothing in the face of evil. That is cowardice, not Christianity. I am advocating, active, non-violent resistance, with love.
First, I get your distinction between force and violence, and (i thought) i had been using the terms appropriately.
“Is it ever compassionate to kill someone? I say no.”
Absolute statements are the easiest to deflate. If you could have assassinated Adolph Hitler in 1943, it would have been a monumental act of compassion for millions of people. More often than not, I agree that killing is not an act of compassion. However, I think we can all agree that it is possible. Our debate ( I think) is in the particulars.
“If it not compassionate to spare someone from great physical evil (suffering) with Euthanasia, then it is not compassionate to prevent someone from some great moral evil with violence.”
I see this as erroneous, and also as a false dichotomy. First, physical suffering as a result of natural causes is not “evil”. It is a part of the burden of our existence in a physical and imperfect (fallen) world.
The terminally ill person who is suffering has done no wrong, is endangering no one. Their suffering, while we would wish to mitigate it, can serve a purpose, as did the suffering of Jesus, if they are able to offer it up as a sacrifice.
Someone who is about to commit an act of great moral evil not only can be stopped as an act of compassion, but I would argue that we are duty bound as brothers and sisters in Christ to do all we are able to prevent that act. Even if it means using force, even if that force may reach a potentially lethal level. As I stated earlier, not only for the sake of the victim, but for the sake of the perpetrator as well. I am not advocating the use of lethal force per se, but I am advocating the use of force, even if it may be lethal. It is a subtle but critical distinction.
“Furthermore, our faith and indeed our hope (for ourselves, our children and those who cannot defend themselves, and our especially our enemies) should not, as a Christian, be placed violence, or guns, or any display of power or might, rather our faith and our hope are Christ.”
Well, my faith is in Christ, not in guns, force or power. That, however, does not mean that the use of a gun, or force, or even power, may not be moral or even Christlike in some way. Again, a false dichotomy. We strive for a world of peace, where we need not use force, but in a fallen world, when faced with unpleasant choices where it is not so black and white as ‘Christ or violence’, we sometimes must do things that are less than our ideal. While we strive towards a Christlike ideal, we must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The real question is, in sum, will my actions create more compassion than pain, or more pain than compassion. That is often a difficult question to answer.
“Either I believe that violence saves or I believe that Jesus saves, which is it?”
Absolutely a false dichotomy. No where in this thread has anyone even come close to positing that ‘violence saves’ or even ‘force saves’. Certainly none here would put either of those actions over our faith in Christ. Can we get back to serious discussion now?
“Finally, I think that Jesus refrained from using his power to violently defeat his persecutors speaks much more clearly of the nonviolent force of his kenotic love. Not only did he choose not to use violence to save himself. He chose not to use violence (or to commend the use of violence) to save his apostles, whom he knew would share his fate.”
Well, first, not all the Apostles were martyrs. John, brother of James died a natural death.
Kenotic Theology is an interesting thing to bring in here. I think if you follow that school of thought, consider this. What would Jesus death have meant if he did not have all the power of the heavens at his disposal and yet did not bring it forth? The fact that he had that power available and chose not to use it is what made his crucifixion a supreme sacrifice. I won’t pretend I know much about Kenotic theology, but for now, I’d say I’m unconvinced. I’ll also say that as Christians, we still believe in the Old Testament, and God certainly had no qualms about the use of power and force if just. Christ may be the new covenant, but it is one in context of the old covenant, not a refutation of it.
“** Note, I am not advocating passivism, which stands by and does nothing in the face of evil. That is cowardice, not Christianity.”
Here, we agree.
“I am advocating, active, non-violent resistance, with love.”
I would love to know just what you mean by this.
I appreciate this discussion, and the original post that has generated it. It is proving most interesting, and testing my certainties- which is always a good thing.
Thanks so much for the wonderful example.
I remember, of all people, Hans Kung telling a story about German theologians–Catholic and non-Catholic–discussing the upcoming, rumored infallible definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
A certain Catholic theologian was explaining in great detail why the Assumption COULD NOT be defined as a dogma. He was very detailed and convincing.
But at the end of his exposition, a non-Catholic theologian looked at him and asked, “But…what if it IS defined?”
A long pause ensued.
Finally, the Catholic theologian said, “Then I believe it. Because I trust the Church more than I trust myself.”
Hans Kung said, “I found this to be so beautiful…” (Yes, I know…very odd that he should say that…)
In any case, the same spirit is present in what you wrote. A Spirit of Humility and Wisdom. And: I found it to be so beautiful.
Nate, I’m impressed.
No. I don’t think you’ve done a 180, but you are starting to see the reasoning as to why sometimes violence is necessary. It is not desired. It is not a good thing in itself. But as long as wolves prowl among the sheep, there will need to be sheepdogs (both professional and amateur).
“as long as wolves prowl among the sheep, there will need to be sheepdogs (both professional and amateur).”
And yet, this is exactly where I, and the Church, disagree. Vatican II called us to look at war in an entirely different manner. Pope JPtG asked us to learn how to fight for justice without violence, renouncing war. The need for violence will remain only as long as we let it.
As long as we let the myth of redemptive violence reign, there will be the need for sheepdogs. As long as we keep the Holy Spirit bottled up, there will be a need for sheepdogs. But as Pope Benedict says, faith brings the future into the present. The Kingdom may not arrive fully until Jesus Christ returns in his glory, but the Kingdom is still yet present through the people of God.
Nate, we live in a fallen world. Until the coming of our Lord, there will be all the frailties of humanity, and that means that the justification for use of force will always be with us. We hope we will be able to reduce it (and I believe we have and will continue to), but to imagine that we can do more than that renders the coming of a perfect world moot. We await Christ’s return because we can’t achieve that world ourselves.
“Pope JPtG asked us to learn how to fight for justice without violence, renouncing war. The need for violence will remain only as long as we let it.
As long as we let the myth of redemptive violence reign, there will be the need for sheepdogs. As long as we keep the Holy Spirit bottled up, there will be a need for sheepdogs.”
Who is the “we” in these lines? Certainly those who are open to the Holy Spirit we should make every endeavor to reach without force. Those who close themselves leave us few options. There is no inconsistency there. JPtG asked us to fight without violence, and that is noble and far preferred, but to think that violence is an element only of “our” desires (I presume you mean all of us) is, I believe, flawed.
You seem conflicted where you should not be. The principles are sound and in accordance with church teaching. The real debate is exactly where the line is drawn.
Here’s how I think you could look at the issue of a Christian approach to violence (or warfare). I renounce war- I will not advocate it as a positive, I will not initiate it. If it is initiated upon us, I must respond. When our opponent is weakened to the point where we have the opportunity to deliver a coup de grace, I will offer peace and goodwill instead. If they accept, Perhaps we’ve opened the door a crack for the Holy Spirit. If they reject the offer of peace, we have little choice but to defend those who seek peace, and are open to the Spirit.
Doesn’t that seem reasonable in the Christian context?
Nate, we live in a fallen world. Until the coming of our Lord, there will be all the frailties of humanity, and that means that the justification for use of force will always be with us. We hope we will be able to reduce it (and I believe we have and will continue to), but to imagine that we can do more than that renders the coming of a perfect world moot. We await Christ’s return because we can’t achieve that world ourselves.
How often we forget that the reason we live in a fallen world is not because God created it that way. It’s because of US.
It’s because God created us in his image, with free will, and to experience all the gifts God endowed us with, we exercise that free will. The consequence being that we know both sides of the knowledge of good and evil. Otherwise we’d be blissfully ignorant, but something less than human. There would be no glory of Christs sacrifice, for instance.
Otherwise we’d be blissfully ignorant, but something less than human.
So praise God that we are not “blissfully ignorant” of the glories of war, without which we would be less than human.
Yeah right.
Douglas,
you are making a “fortunate fall” argument. those are always tempting but never correct.
the “fall” was not fortunate, not intended by God. God did not “want” Himself to be murdered in the form of the Crucified Jesus.
Now, the fact that an unmitigated horror occurred in the fall of man — a fall realized with the greatest horror in the murder of God Himself — was not enough to destroy God’s love. And so God miraculously, as only He can, made something all the more beautiful and loving come out of the pit of human depravity — the Risen Lord, the redemption of man.
But none of this is at all to suggest that God somehow “needed” OUR barbarism in order to reveal His sacrificial love.
That, unfortunately, is to suggest that God wanted us to fall, wanted us to suffer, wanted us to die. None of these bad intentions should be attributed to God.
The truth is that God saved us in Christ DESPITE our sin, despite our fall, despite our absolutely appalling behavior in Eden and on Golgotha.
The fact that God triumphs in and through our evil does not mean that he EVER wants us to be evil.
We cannot imagine what God would have done if we had not fallen. He would not have had to send Himself in the form of Jesus, to save us. But that does not mean that the glory of Christ would have been kept from us. It would have come in a way that we cannot imagine.
Of course God did not want us to fall. He simply knew we would, and that beauty, glory, and understanding that would not be available to a being that did not know of evil would be available to us as a result. It is not a “fortunate” fall, simply a necessary one.
“the “fall” was not fortunate, not intended by God.”
So you’re positing that God is something less than omniscient and omnipotent? Perhaps it is you who hasn’t quite figured out all that come with the burdens of knowledge of good and evil. I’m putting my money on God knowing what he was doing.
“How often we forget that the reason we live in a fallen world is not because God created it that way. It’s because of US.”
Come to think of it, isn’t this statement dangerously close to elevating man to equality, even supremacy to God? Careful.
The fall was neither fortunate nor necessary.
If we are to be free, God has to let us make our choices.
That means that he is not “omnipotent” in the sense that he gives us a certain degree of power in creation. Of course he remains omnipotent because he GAVE us the power. It was his choice. But he DID choose to give us the power. So he chose to limit his own power. The voluntary self-limitation of God is part of what it means for God to create something OTHER than God. God chooses to give free being to humans and to the rest of creation. That means letting us have freedom and not letting himself interfere.
God is omnipotent. But he is not omnipotent in creation. That is a lesson that the story of the Fall is positively meant to teach.
And that goes twice over for the Gospel. Jesus did not think, as Paul said, that equality with God was something to be grasped, and he willingly emptied himself of his divine power so as to become a being in creation. Jesus was killed precisely because God is not — does not let himself be — all-powerful within the free, independent realm of creation.
I can relate. I’ve written something along these lines:
A military-pacifist’s manifesto.
There’s no easy, black or white solution to seemingly contrary demands.
So, when you get to the fork on the road, TAKE IT!
In Christ,
-Theo
“The fall was neither fortunate nor necessary.”
Fine, how about inevitable. I think that’s more where I was going.
“If we are to be free, God has to let us make our choices.”
Agreed.
“That means that he is not “omnipotent” in the sense that he gives us a certain degree of power in creation.”
Well, by that logic, lions also have a certain degree of power in creation. They can choose to end a human life or not.
“Of course he remains omnipotent because he GAVE us the power. It was his choice. But he DID choose to give us the power. So he chose to limit his own power. The voluntary self-limitation of God is part of what it means for God to create something OTHER than God. God chooses to give free being to humans and to the rest of creation. That means letting us have freedom and not letting himself interfere.”
Well, sort of. God gave us free will. He in no way yielded his power, nor has he refrained from using it, nor has he refrained from being involved in our lives here on Earth. Christ is evidence enough of that, much less the power of the Holy Spirit. I do agree that he’s not really pushing us around like game pieces on a board, though.
“God is omnipotent. But he is not omnipotent in creation. That is a lesson that the story of the Fall is positively meant to teach.”
Not sure I understand this line. After all, when we fell, he kicked us out of Eden. Seems a pretty concrete demonstration of his absolute authority here as well as in Heaven.
“And that goes twice over for the Gospel. Jesus did not think, as Paul said, that equality with God was something to be grasped, and he willingly emptied himself of his divine power so as to become a being in creation. “
If Jesus emptied himself of his divine power (that Kenotic idea again), why was he able to perform miracles and raise Lazarus from the dead?
“Jesus was killed precisely because God is not — does not let himself be — all-powerful within the free, independent realm of creation.”
Really? If that were true, Jesus sacrifice would be meaningless, as he couldn’t have stopped it if he wanted to. It has meaning precisely because he could have done something, but instead bore the human suffering of torture and death for our sakes.
Come to think of it, isn’t this statement dangerously close to elevating man to equality, even supremacy to God? Careful.
Um, no. Not at all. What a bizarre reading of what I actually said.
What you actually said, in it’s entirety:
“How often we forget that the reason we live in a fallen world is not because God created it that way. It’s because of US.”
I take that to say that God created a wholly perfect world which had not even the seed of a fallen world, and that it was we who introduced evil into it. Well, this fails on several accounts. First, God created a world which was perfect, but contained the germ of a fallen world in the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. He also created us, and obviously, we had the capacity, perhaps even a predisposition toward being fallen creatures in a fallen world.
My point about the elevation of man to a godlike state had to do with your notion of us even being able to create the fallen condition out of whole cloth. It is God’s creation, and his alone. What we have, he has given us.
Point being that WE didn’t create evil or the capacity for it, God created everything- the capacity for evil and a fallen world included. His reasons may be beyond our understanding of why this was right and good, but out failure to understand has no bearing on it’s perfection of design.
I realize that you hadn’t really understood what underlaid your statement, but I thought perhaps if I pointed out the problem, you’d go back and realize the problem in the view you expressed in that statement. I guess I wasn’t explicit enough, sorry.
The fall was not necessary, not inevitable. Not at all.
It did not have to happen. It was not part of God’s plan.
This is a fundamental and very important theological point. There’s no controversy about it either. But it’s hard to grasp, and it’s hard to follow through its implications to the end.
But no orthodox Christian theologian will agree that the fall was inevitable.
Douglas – Human beings did introduce evil into the world. This is orthodox Christianity.
If there was a tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, than evil (at least in potential form) existed before we did. Sorry, but you’re wrong, and if you want to tell me that all orthodox Christians believe as you do, fine, they’re all wrong.
If you’re trying to tell me that the fall wasn’t part of God’s plan, you’re telling me God had a plan, but we derailed it. That places us, at some point, on level with God. Sorry, not buying it. Besides, I think that seeing God’s “plan” as something that a linear minded Human can understand is ludicrous. God, and his plans are far more complex than we can comprehend. Without the limitations of our temporal existence, God can perceive all possibilities in simultaneity- he sees ALL possible paths, all possible outcomes, and can deal with them all as well, because he is not only omniscient, but omnipotent. To think that we could foul up God’s plan is ridiculous.
Riddle me this: Why did God even have the tree in the garden? Why not leave it out, then we’d have never been tempted to the fall? Why were we even able to disobey God in a ‘perfect’ world by taking the fruit before even biting it?
It’s not so simple, and God didn’t create us as the sole implementers of ‘evil’ in the world. After all, Lucifer came before we.
Remember, Love is a choice, and if there is no choice, there is no love.
In the account of the Flood in Genesis, God “repents” of making the world. He is so disgusted with what humans have made of the world, that he decides it was a mistake to have made beings with freedom.
God then floods the world.
But after he does so, he THEN realizes that men will STILL be evil, even though he’s killed all of them except for Noah and his family. Even then they will be evil, because the “imagination of man’s heart was evil from the beginning.”
What this story teaches is that God Himself was surprised and disgusted by human evil, that He thought to get rid of it by killing all humans except for the family of the one just man, that He then realized that even Noah’s descendants would be evil — and then, finally, God accepted human evil.
God Himself, according to Genesis, thought that He screwed up in making human beings. And then God Himself thought that He screwed up, again, in killing them.
Basically, the story of Noah teaches us that God couldn’t have known in advance what humans would do with their freedom. That’s what freedom IS. If humans are free — and that’s what it means to be in God’s image — then we have the power to surprise and hurt and disgust God. It’s just that simple.
God CHOSE to make us that way by limiting His own power in creation. And at with the gift of freedom (given to us by God) we have the power to surprise God, to hurt Him, and to make Him angry. The SUPREMACY of God’s power — if one wishes to think about power — is such that he can GIVE us power over him.
And if you read the Old Testament, God is constantly angry, hurt, and disgusted by humans.
It’s all there, quite out in the open. The points I am making are not at all original.
The final implication of this history of man and God is that God has given man the power to kill God Himself. God gives us the power (in creation) to make Him suffer the worst we can give. He lets Himself be subject to human evil. And then, with the Resurrection, God reveals that even our worst cannot destroy His love for us.
There are a lot of unfounded assumptions that you are making about God’s power in creation. They certainly go against traditional Jewish and Christian teaching. I’m not going to convince you in a single post. But you should at least think more about this, especially with reference to the Old Testament representations of God as being surprised and hurt by his people.
God’s plan for creation is not like a human plan, with easily discernible steps and directions. The reason for this is that His plan includes a partially autonomous creation, which has been turned over — in a mysterious way — to God’s creatures.
One of the very basic ideas implied in the doctrine of creation is that God both is and is not in creation. Creation has a divine substance and purpose. God provides for creation by keeping in being and by putting his divine purposes into its very substance. But these purposes can be betrayed. Love is indeed a choice — God has riskily offered love to us — and we have the power to refuse the offer. That makes a difference in the history of creation, and it makes a difference to God.
Look, these ideas have been debated and considered by greater men than we. I for one, will side with Aquinas in what he has built on from Augustine (orthodox enough for you?). Curiously, your “open theism” reading of the flood story is non-orthodox. Also, in simple terms, we did not create evil nor did God. Evil isn’t a thing, it’s a lack of God’s perfect love. In free will, we sometimes (often perhaps) fail to implement all that God’s love would permit us. That shadow in the light of God in our lives is evil.
Better and more in depth here:
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, bottom of the entry for “Evil”:
In the light of Catholic doctrine, any theory that may be held concerning evil must include certain points bearing on the question that have been authoritatively defined. These points are
* the omnipotence, omniscience, and absolute goodness of the Creator;
* the freedom of the will; and
* that suffering is the penal consequence of wilful disobedience to the law of God.
A complete account may be gathered from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, by whom the principles of St. Augustine are systematized, and to some extent supplemented. Evil, according to St. Thomas, is a privation, or the absence of some good which belongs properly to the nature of the creature. (I,Q. xiv, a. 10; Q. xlix, a. 3; Contra Gentiles, III, ix, x). There is therefore no “summum malum”, or positive source of evil, corresponding to the “summum bonum”, which is God (I, Q. xlix, a. 3; C. G., III, 15; De Malo, I, 1); evil being not “ens reale” but only “ens rationis”–i.e. it exists not as an objective fact, but as a subjective conception; things are evil not in themselves, but by reason of their relation to other things, or persons. All realities (entia) are in themselves good; they produce bad results only incidentally; and consequently the ultimate cause of evil if fundamentally good, as well as the objects in which evil is found (I, Q. xlix; cf. I, Q. v, 3; De Malo, I, 3). Thus the Manichaean dualism has no foundation in reason.
Evil is threefold, viz., “malum naturæ;” (metaphysical evil), “culpæ” (moral), and “paenæ” (physical, the retributive consequence of “malum culpæ;”) (I, Q. xlviii, a. 5, 6; Q. lxiii, a. 9; De Malo, I, 4). Its existence subserves the perfection of the whole; the universe would be less perfect if it contained no evil. Thus fire could not exist without the corruption of what it consumes; the lion must slay the ass in order to live, and if there were no wrong doing, there would be no sphere for patience and justice (I, Q. xlviii, a. 2). God id said (as in Isaiah 45) to be the author of evil in the sense that the corruption of material objects in nature is ordained by Him, as a means for carrying out the design of the universe; and on the other hand, the evil which exists as a consequence of the breach of Divine laws is in the same sense due to Divine appointment; the universe would be less perfect if its laws could be broken with impunity. Thus evil, in one aspect, i.e. as counter-balancing the deordination of sin, has the nature of good (II, Q. ii, a. 19). But the evil of sin (culpæ), though permitted by God, is in no sense due to him (I, Q. xlix, a. 2).; its cause is the abuse of free will by angels and men (I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 6; II-II, Q. x, a. 2; I-II, Q. ix, a. 3). It should be observed that the universal perfection to which evil in some form is necessary, is the perfection of this universe, not of any universe: metaphysical evil, that is to say, and indirectly, moral evil as well, is included in the design of the universe which is partially known to us; but we cannot say without denying the Divine omnipotence, that another equally perfect universe could not be created in which evil would have no place.
St. Thomas also provides explanations of what are now generally considered to be the two main difficulties of the subject, viz., the Divine permission of foreseen moral evil, and the question finally arriving thence, why God choose to create anything at all. First, it is asked why God, foreseeing that his creatures would use the gift of free will for their own injury, did not either abstain from creating them, or in some way safeguard their free will from misuse, or else deny them the gift altogether? St. Thomas replies (C. G., II, xxviii) that God cannot change His mind, since the Divine will is free from the defect of weakness or mutability. Such mutability would, it should be remarked, be a defect in the Divine nature (and therefore impossible), because if God’s purpose were made dependent on the foreseen free act of any creature, God would thereby sacrifice His own freedom, and would submit Himself to His creatures, thus abdicating His essential supremacy–a thing which is, of course, utterly inconceivable. Secondly, to the question why God should have chosen to create, when creation was in no way needful for His own perfection, St. Thomas answers that God’s object in creating is Himself; He creates in order to manifest his own goodness, power, and wisdom, and is pleased with that reflection or similitude of Himself in which the goodness of creation consists. God’s pleasure is the one supremely perfect motive for action, alike in God Himself and in His creatures; not because of any need, or inherent necessity, in the Divine nature (C. G., I, xxviii; II, xxiii), but because God is the source, centre, and object, of all existence. (I, Q. 65:a. 2; cf. Proverbs 26 and Conc. Vat., can. 1:v; Const. Dogm., 1.) This is accordingly the sufficient reason for the existence of the universe, and even for the suffering which moral evil has introduced into it. God has not made the world primarily for man’s good, but for His own pleasure; good for man lies in conforming himself to the supreme purpose of creation, and evil in departing from it (C.G., III, xvii, cxliv). It may further be understood from St. Thomas, that in the diversity of metaphysical evil, in which the perfection of the universe as a whole is embodied, God may see a certain similitude of His own threefold unity (cf. I, Q. xii); and again, that by permitting moral evil to exist He has provided a sphere for the manifestation of one aspect of His essential justice (cf. I, Q. lxv, a. 2; and I, Q. xxi, a. 1, 3).
It is obviously impossible to suggest a reason why this universe in particular should have been created rather than another; since we are necessarily incapable of forming an idea of any other universe than this. Similarly, we are unable to imagine why God chose to manifest Himself by the way of creation, instead of, or in addition to, the other ways, whatever they may be, by which He has, or may have, attained the same end. We reach here the utmost limit of speculation; and our inability to conceive the ultimate reason for creation (as distinct from its direct motive) is paralleled, at a much earlier stage of the enquire, by the inability of the non-creationist schools of thought to assign any ultimate cause for the existence of the order of nature. It will be observed that St. Thomas’s account of evil is a true Theodicy, taking into consideration as it does every factor of the problem, and leaving unsolved only the mystery of creation, before which all schools of thought are equally helpless. It is as impossible to know, in the fullest sense, why this world was made as to know how it was made; but St. Thomas has at least shown that the acts of the Creator admit of complete logical justification, notwithstanding the mystery in which, for human intelligence, they can never wholly cease to be involved. On Catholic principles, the amelioration of moral evil and its consequent suffering can only take place by means of individual reformation, and not so much through increase of knowledge as through stimulation or re-direction of the will. But since all methods of social improvement that have any value must necessarily represent a nearer approach to conformity with Divine laws they are welcomed and furthered by the Church, as tending, at least indirectly, to accomplish the purpose for which she exists.
Well, I will side with Aquinas and what he built up from Augustine. Orthodox enough for you? Curiously, your “open theism” reading of the Flood story is not orthodox.
As for we creating evil in God’s perfect world, we did not create evil and neither did God. Evil isn’t an afirmative thing, it is the absence of God’s love. In having free will, we sometimes (perhaps often) fail to fully open ourselves to God’s love, and as a result there is a shadow cast by us in the light of God’s love. Yes, we create that shadow whenever we sin, but we did not create evil.
Look, these ideas have been considered and debated by far greater men than we, and written about in far more detail than I will here.
You might want to read the entry on “Evil” at the Catholic Encyclopedia, particularly the part at the end specific to the theology in the Catholic understanding. The earlier portions are a quick overview of the many historical schools of thought on the subject of evil in all traditions.
I tried to post that portion here earlier, but it failed, so you’ll have to go there to read it. It’s quite comprehensive.
What you are posting is in agreement with what I have been saying, and goes against what you were saying earlier.
The point is that God did not intend evil to enter the world, nor was it necessary or inevitable.
The quoted passages say that God’s act of creation always included within it the POSSIBILITY of sin, and that the consequences of sin can be made to accord with God’s justice and glory.
I never said otherwise. What I said was that God’s act of creation did not in any sense REQUIRE the entry of evil into the world. God’s plan is not RUINED by our evil. By giving us freedom, he certainly allowed for the POSSIBLE entry of evil into the world. But this does not mean that evil HAD to enter the world. It was not, as you said, “inevitable.”
Well, it’s true, we’re coming pretty close together here, but there are differences.
What I said originally:
“Of course God did not want us to fall. He simply knew we would, and that beauty, glory, and understanding that would not be available to a being that did not know of evil would be available to us as a result. It is not a “fortunate” fall, simply a necessary one.”
Later, I admitted that “necessary” was a bad choice of words and suggested ‘inevitable’, perhaps also a bit too narrow, but closer. If you read what I said ,I really was interested in the idea that God knew we would fall, and allowed it, perhaps even seeing that greater good would come of it (we cannot of course know this for certain, but it falls within the realm of reason).
I will continue to disagree with you Open Theism reading of the flood, and that it is not orthodoxy.
A will also strongly disagree with this statement regarding the fall:
“It did not have to happen. It was not part of God’s plan.”
I continue to hold that you are taking an unorthodox position (in line with Open Theism) which I do not ascribe to. Getting back to the original point of the post, I think that is where those adhering to more pacifistic positions are led astray. They see ‘evil’ as a creation purely of man, and in which there is no redeeming quality. I question that, and if you read the Catholic Encyclopedia entry I cited, you’ll see that you have taken the unorthodox position.
“The point is that God did not intend evil to enter the world, nor was it necessary or inevitable.
The quoted passages say that God’s act of creation always included within it the POSSIBILITY of sin, and that the consequences of sin can be made to accord with God’s justice and glory. “
Correct, but you wish to read this in terms of evil being a manifest entity, and hold an “Open Theism” view of God, neither of which is orthodox. I hold the orthodox position that ‘evil’ is non-manifest, like a shadow, it is a negative, not a positive. That means that when god created a universe where evil was permitted (“the possibility of sin”), he created all that needed existing for evil to exist. Therefore, God ‘created’ evil, so far as it can be considered created.
“God’s plan is not RUINED by our evil.”
Really? Sounds to me like your reading of the Flood story says otherwise:
“In the account of the Flood in Genesis, God “repents” of making the world. He is so disgusted with what humans have made of the world, that he decides it was a mistake to have made beings with freedom.”
When you make a mistake and decide to destroy it rather than fix it, I’d say it’s perceived as ruined.
Also, this passage from the enclyclopedia:
“In the light of Catholic doctrine, any theory that may be held concerning evil must include certain points bearing on the question that have been authoritatively defined. These points are
* the omnipotence, omniscience, and absolute goodness of the Creator;”
It seems to me that your views of an Open Theism contradict Catholic doctrinal teaching in that if God has the lack of foreknowledge and moment of realization you talked about:
“God then floods the world.
But after he does so, he THEN realizes that men will STILL be evil,”
then he is clearly NOT omniscient.
“Basically, the story of Noah teaches us that God couldn’t have known in advance what humans would do with their freedom.”
Again, denying God Omniscience. You have to understand that God is not limited by our four dimensions, and by our linear sense of time. He’s not bound by time at all. If we believe he is Omniscient, and that he has given us free will, then he must understand not only every possible choice before us, but the results of every possible path if taken, and how that effects every other choice down the line. God is infinite. We are oh so finite. Be careful not to anthropomorphize God.
I think this passage is critical to rebut your arguments:
“Its existence subserves the perfection of the whole; the universe would be less perfect if it contained no evil. Thus fire could not exist without the corruption of what it consumes; the lion must slay the ass in order to live, and if there were no wrong doing, there would be no sphere for patience and justice (I, Q. xlviii, a. 2). God id said (as in Isaiah 45) to be the author of evil in the sense that the corruption of material objects in nature is ordained by Him, as a means for carrying out the design of the universe; and on the other hand, the evil which exists as a consequence of the breach of Divine laws is in the same sense due to Divine appointment; the universe would be less perfect if its laws could be broken with impunity. Thus evil, in one aspect, i.e. as counter-balancing the deordination of sin, has the nature of good (II, Q. ii, a. 19). But the evil of sin (culpæ), though permitted by God, is in no sense due to him (I, Q. xlix, a. 2).; its cause is the abuse of free will by angels and men (I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 6; II-II, Q. x, a. 2; I-II, Q. ix, a. 3).”
Sorry about the double post earlier. I’m enjoying this discussion immensely, thank you.
Thanks Douglas — I know my reading of the Flood story is not strictly orthodox, but the spirit of is, I think — all I am trying to say that the Flood story strongly argues against the idea of evil’s inevitability. God’s plan may have included and provided for the just inclusion of evil, but it did not require it.
Given what God has let us know of his plan, it is really going against God’s will when we don’t take his commands at face value: he told us not to be evil; he told Adam not to eat the fruit; taking things at face value, we have to believe that the Fall was therefore not what God wanted. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have commanded us to be good and obedient.
Going beyond this is getting into Gnostic speculation. God does not want, intend, require, or expect evil — and that’s why he told us to be good. The fact that there IS evil does not ruin God’s plan — as is evidenced most clearly in the Cross and Resurrection, by which God overcomes evil in a way nearly inconceivable to us: God overcomes evil by suffering it.
As for my reading of the Flood story: the tradition interprets it figuratively, which is why it may not be consistent with my reading. But before the story can be interpreted, the details have to be pointed out. The details I pointed out are there, and they should be disconcerting to any easy assertion that God wanted, expected, required evil — the text does in fact say that he “repented” of making the world.
There is no redeeming quality in evil.
God may be able to redeem evil, and that may be to his great glory. (We can’t say “greater” glory because we don’t know how God would have glorified himself in a history without evil.) But God clearly has been able, in Christ, to find a way to glorify Himself in and through evil. But that simply does not mean that there is any redemptive quality in evil itself.
You are looking at salvation history as a story, in human terms, in which all the pieces are key. Thus, Christ cannot come without the Fall, etc. That is human logic. God’s glory in Christ must be free — gratuitous, graceful, unmotivated, uncaused, free — and thus free to come to us quite apart from what we do.
The whole miracle of Christ and resurrection is that they are NOT continuous with the history that lead up to them. Of course they are prefigured, of course there is a sequence of revelation, etc. But Christ and resurrection are not CAUSED and determined by previous events, in the way that historical events usually are. There is no reason to give evil any credit for making redemption possible. There is nothing good in evil. As your earlier quotations make clear, evil is nothing other than the privation of good. It is, by definition, not good.
It is never, never a good idea to look at human evil and say, “But at least this or that good came out of it.” We must always look at evil and TRY to bring whatever good we can out of it. But we must never assume that good NEEDS evil to come out of it.
Again, these are gnostic assumptions — the Manichean assumption that good and evil must come together, the idea that good is revealed by contrast with evil, etc. One of the great and daring things about Christian revelation is its assertion that humans can apprehend and enjoy the good, without having anything to contrast it with. That would have been unfallen existence — which, according to the very basic logic of the fall story, WAS a REAL option for humans.
“I know my reading of the Flood story is not strictly orthodox, but the spirit of is, I think”
Well, I’d have to disagree. Accepting Open Theism is clearly non-orthodox, and is in fact a pretty bold departure from orthodoxy. It’s fine with me that you hold to it, but it isn’t at all orthodox.
“God’s plan may have included and provided for the just inclusion of evil, but it did not require it.”
Well, at this point, you’re splitting hairs. However, the very fact that we have free will means that nothing could be “required”. If things were required and predestined, we’d not have free will.
“Given what God has let us know of his plan, it is really going against God’s will when we don’t take his commands at face value: he told us not to be evil; he told Adam not to eat the fruit; taking things at face value, we have to believe that the Fall was therefore not what God wanted. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have commanded us to be good and obedient.”
I won’t even begin to pretend to understand what God wanted or expected. I think that is a level of understanding that is by definition, outside our realm of understanding. That said, just because God asked us not to sin, and gave us rules to live by, doesn’t mean we can divine his desires. I will still hold to the idea that if God is omniscient, and omnipotent, the only way for him to give us the choice of good- in fact the only way good can be created by creatures of free will, is for there to be the choice of evil, and therefore God may have had full intention of creating a universe that held evil because it was the only way to create good. I also think it’s wise to remember that God is our almighty father, and as such, he tells us what we should do, and guides us towards goodness even though he knows we will falter and sometimes fail.
“Going beyond this is getting into Gnostic speculation. God does not want, intend, require, or expect evil — and that’s why he told us to be good. The fact that there IS evil does not ruin God’s plan — as is evidenced most clearly in the Cross and Resurrection, by which God overcomes evil in a way nearly inconceivable to us: God overcomes evil by suffering it.”
Like I said, I don’t think we can even speculate about God’s intentions or expectations, only his greatness and requests of us. But I think I already talked about that. The second half I agree with.
“As for my reading of the Flood story: … … — the text does in fact say that he “repented” of making the world.”
Well, a text says that. I should say, a translation says that. I think you really should read the paper at the link I provided earlier. It seems pretty sound from both a scholarly and theological point of view. If you read it , you may rethink your “Open Theism” position.
“There is no redeeming quality in evil.”
Well, that I can agree with. There is no inherant redemption in evil. It does not therefore follow that redemption can come (in this universe) without the presence or at least potential of evil.
“There is no reason to give evil any credit for making redemption possible.”
We cannot give evil credit any more than we give ‘good’ credit. People get credit for doing good, and bear the burden of the evil they cause. But remember, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are measures, not things of elemental existence. They are descriptions of the effect of actions. Evil has it’s place, since as we attempt to reach redemption, there must be a place where we could be detoured to other than redemption. Another way of looking at the idea of the necessity of evil, for without there is no good. Again, the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Evil states it quite well.
“But we must never assume that good NEEDS evil to come out of it.”
Correct. However, there need be at least the potential for evil. If we were but well behaved automatons, nothing we did would be able to be considered ‘good’. the actions would have no meaning in personal redemptive terms.
The preceding lines I whole heartedly agree with:
“It is never, never a good idea to look at human evil and say, “But at least this or that good came out of it.” We must always look at evil and TRY to bring whatever good we can out of it.”
“Again, these are gnostic assumptions — the Manichean assumption that good and evil must come together, the idea that good is revealed by contrast with evil, etc. One of the great and daring things about Christian revelation is its assertion that humans can apprehend and enjoy the good, without having anything to contrast it with. That would have been unfallen existence — which, according to the very basic logic of the fall story, WAS a REAL option for humans.”
From that Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Evil again:
“A complete account may be gathered from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, by whom the principles of St. Augustine are systematized, and to some extent supplemented. Evil, according to St. Thomas, is a privation, or the absence of some good which belongs properly to the nature of the creature. (I,Q. xiv, a. 10; Q. xlix, a. 3; Contra Gentiles, III, ix, x). There is therefore no “summum malum”, or positive source of evil, corresponding to the “summum bonum”, which is God (I, Q. xlix, a. 3; C. G., III, 15; De Malo, I, 1); evil being not “ens reale” but only “ens rationis”–i.e. it exists not as an objective fact, but as a subjective conception; things are evil not in themselves, but by reason of their relation to other things, or persons. All realities (entia) are in themselves good; they produce bad results only incidentally; and consequently the ultimate cause of evil if fundamentally good, as well as the objects in which evil is found (I, Q. xlix; cf. I, Q. v, 3; De Malo, I, 3). Thus the Manichaean dualism has no foundation in reason.”
So you see that there is an orthodox position that holds that evil exists (such as it ‘exists’) in contrast to good. Back to ‘the love of God is the light and evil is the shadow’ thing. That is not Manichean dualism.
Is it possible to have a world not fallen where good exists? All things are possible in God. He’s omnipotent, after all. But in this world? I’m not sure I can buy into that. How would we have a choice for good? Choices involve options, and what is the option to good if not evil?
I’m learning a lot of formal language for these arguments from these discussions, thanks.
close italics