Tremors of Doubt

Orthodox theologian David Hart in the WSJ:

When confronted by the sheer savage immensity of worldly suffering--when we see the entire littoral rim of the Indian Ocean strewn with tens of thousands of corpses, a third of them children's--no Christian is licensed to utter odious banalities about God's inscrutable counsels or blasphemous suggestions that all this mysteriously serves God's good ends. We are permitted only to hate death and waste and the imbecile forces of chance that shatter living souls, to believe that creation is in agony in its bonds, to see this world as divided between two kingdoms--knowing all the while that it is only charity that can sustain us against "fate," and that must do so until the end of days.

Comments

[Donald R. McClarey]

"When confronted by the sheer savage immensity of worldly suffering--when we see the entire littoral rim of the Indian Ocean strewn with tens of thousands of corpses, a third of them children's--no Christian is licensed to utter odious banalities about God's inscrutable counsels or blasphemous suggestions that all this mysteriously serves God's good ends."

In other words no Christian should quote from the book of Job. I can see no purpose that all this serves in God's plan, but then I am not God and I assume He knows His plan quite a bit better than I do.

[RalphJ]

Something like half of all embryos die because they fail to implant properly on the uterine wall. That can't be by God's design, can it?

[Faith]

We know that babies in the embryonic stage of life can be legally killed due to the decree of man, not God.

[Carrie]

it is only charity that can sustain us against "fate," and that must do so until the end of days.

"Only" charity? Without taking anything away from the importance of charity, I would suggest that faith is a major sustainer in the face of death.

He seems to equate "fate" with the will of God, and then indicate that the will of God must be opposed by man through the use of charity. If that is what he means, his comment is heretical.

[John]

RalphJ says: "Something like half of all embryos die because they fail to implant properly on the uterine wall. That can't be by God's design, can it?"

Faith responds: "We know that babies in the embryonic stage of life can be legally killed due to the decree of man, not God."

I am not sure that these two statements are addressing the same issue.

[AH]

David Hart is fearless and eloquent. He is in deep public waters here. Could we mitigate the Heresy Watch until we carefully examine his body of work, most particularly The Beauty of the Infinite.

He also has a tour de force review on Oden's Kierkegaard et al. in the current First Things.

I do hope all our ministries are correspondingly vigorous and winsome.

[Jeff Z.]

So much of what passes as "faith" among American Christians is little more than wishful thinking and a Pollyanna-ish way of looking at the starkness of reality. After original sin, everything is not right with the world. Both the physical world and the human family still need the fullness of Christ's redemption. David Hart's article reminds us that true Christian faith is not wishful thinking or forced optimism anymore than it is the desperate pessimism of a Voltaire who ridicules the Christian belief in the goodness of God.

[Matt W.]

With regard to the faith vs. charity issue, I believe Hart's point is that it is through our charity (love) that we sustain each other. He leaves unstated that this charity is a product of our faith.

[Paul]

The tsunami was a man-made disaster.

[Faith]

John, A clearer statement is to not blame God for natural disasters just because He created nature, or to blame Him for the disastrous decisions that people make just because He created people. Most Christians pray to Him and reach out to help others because of Christ's teachings and example. Those who criticize them are truly ignorant of the faith.

[Maclin Horton]

I had a go at some of these questions last summer when those of us who live on the southern coasts were being battered by hurricanes.

[Jeff Culbreath]

Is it blasphemous to suggest that all things - tsunamis included - will be made to suit God's good ends? It may be extremely bad timing for most of us to say so at the moment, but I rather think it is blasphemous to deny it.

[Jimmy Mac]

" Something like half of all embryos die because they fail to implant properly on the uterine wall. That can't be by God's design, can it? "

OK, I'll bite. Does this mean that only the "good stuff" that happens is of God's design and the "bad stuff" is of ......???

[Fr Phil Bloom]

Something like half of all embryos die because they fail to implant properly on the uterine wall.

Ralph, is that statement based on actual study? For some time I have been curious to know if medical researchers have some exact studies on that question. (I'm not asking here for a solution to the problem of evil, but simply trying to gather some data.) Thanks. And a Happy New Year to all!

[Sandra Miesel]

A man-made disaster? Please explain? Surely you don't mean that people who live by the sea deserve whatever happens to them?

[Diane]

Fr. Phil Bloom

I've read in The Grolier Encyclopedia that perhaps as many as three-fourths of conceptions are spontaneously aborted and that most occur before the pregnancy can be confirmed. They don't say where they get that number from though.

[michigancatholic]

As much as people don't like to admit it, we live in an imperfect world. Things like the tsunami can, and do, happen. We are not God and cannot do anything about the fundamental existence of evil. We can only prevent damage as best we can, and help each other to cope with after-effects.

God, on the other hand, never does or causes evil, and he can make good come from evil in a way that we cannot.

[Paul]

Certainly a man-made disaster. Water is made by God, disaster not. I have posted on this (see the trackbacks here).

[Matthew M]

I have a question, intended to be in earnest. We, as Catholics, believe in an immortal soul, and further, consider our life here on earth to be minutely brief in comparison to eternity. We're given life outr of the generosity of God to glorify him, and by his grace to reshape ourselves to his image as close as possible. Any other consideration of life is peripheral, or it is a means towards that end.

We live only to attain salvation, and enjoy that for eternity. Our chance to attain this salvation at death, the length of our life, is known by God, if not chosen by him (because it is affected by the operation of free wills). As Catholics we believe that every living soul is given enough grace to obtain salvation. (Though in the case of those separated from our sacraments, just barely enough).

Given all this, how is it assumed that dying of a natural disaster is 'early' or 'bad'? When we say "How can God allow such enormous suffering to happen to so many" aren't we focusing entirely on that blip in the existence of a soul when it inhabits this imperfect body, and ignoring the eternal period where it is in union with him (or damned, whatever the case may be)?

It's true that suffering is a dreadful, horrible thing, especially on this scale. But aren't we only seeing a few moments of misery, and ignoring the eternal union of that soul with God?

Now, assuming this is true, I'd still rather not tempt God by dangling over volcanoes. Especailly not when I've not been to confession recently. And there is no doubt that the enormous suffering going on right now deserves all of our compassion and help. But I'm genuinely confused to hear religious folks echo secular values, wondering how God can take life for what seems such a silly reason. Are there many objectively good reasons why people die? Aren't most deaths in their way as bad or worse than drowning in a tidal wave? If God takes my life now, and I go to heaven (crossing fingers), will I be there before God complaining that I didn't get to enjoy more time on earth? Would I want to forsake the face of God for a few more years of earthly delights? Just wondering.

[RalphJ]

Fr. Phil Bloom, can't recall found this via Google:

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/?Show=Show&ShowIssue=2003-02-14

Regarding the problem of evil, Scripture says death is related to sin. Therefore the death of embryos, for example, can't be part of God's original design.

[Faith]

It is true that the people who died are safe now, and with prayer and aid their surviving loved ones will be comforted knowing they will see them again someday, thanks to Christ's conquering the permanent separation of body from soul, and us from God.

[michigancatholic]

Paul, theologically speaking, all evil is the consequence of sin--Adam's sin and the sins since then. And this is an imperfect world. We are not God and this disaster is as close to a proof of that as anything I've ever seen.

Matthew, even Christ cried at the death of Lazarus. Pain is pain; the woes of humankind are real. There is nothing gained in denying them, even though we are part of a bigger picture, yes.

Faith, some of them probably are. Catholics do not believe in universal salvation--ie. faith without works. The salvation of each of them consisted in their acts toward God and man. This is ancient Catholic teaching, still valid today. Trust me, a vacationing man in the arms of a prostitute on that fateful morning will be in trouble at his personal judgment before God. Big trouble.

[Matthew M.]

MichiganCatholic,

I don't mean to fuss, but in John 11 it's not clear that Jesus wept because Lazarus was dead. There can be no doubt that as a human, it would have pained him to lose the company of his friend. But he actually ignored all reports of Lazarus' death until Mary, the sister of Lazarus, falls at his feet weeping. When he sees some of his closest friends weeping, it is then that he is "deeply moved in spirit and troubled."

Far from illustrating the principle that life should last as long as possible, Jesus rather seems to be making three other points. One is that nothing is impossible for God, thus we must have total faith in him. Another, is that raising Lazarus from the dead prefigured the resurrection of the body at the end of time. The third point is that God, and of course this includes Jesus himself, is the only final authority on how long we shall be alive.

There is of course no doubting that suffering, especially on a tremendous scale, in a cruel and arbitrary manner like a tidal wave, tears our hearts. I've never watched anybody close to me be senselessly drowned. I wouldn't wish it on anybody. God certainly made us compassionate in his own image.

What's confusing to me is what seems to be a whoesale adoption of the secular value that the length of life on earth must be extended, and a 'shorter' life (dying before your body wears out) is a grave tragedy. The subtle implication is that our time on earth is all we have, and there is no eternal afterlife (which, by all counts, is better that the best this world has to offer).

Can one can have compassion for the misery of the dead, and the even greater suffering of those still living who have aching holes in their life, but still not adopt the philosphy that life exists to be maximized in length? We do nothing to end life early - that is God's choice. We take preventive measures to extend life, because God gave it to us, and we must take care of his gifts, and use them well. I just can't help but think a distinctly secular set of assumptions has crept into our thinking sometimes, though. Hmm.

[michigancatholic]

Sure, Matthew.

The deaths of children from the tsunami are to be regretted. The sorrow is real.

OTOH, the very modern, even postmodern, impulse to engage in heroic manipulation to save/prolong lives in our culture is definitely not historically Christian, esp. when it involves immoral medical methods....It can be desperate grasping at the belief that this is all there is...I agree with you there.

Not all attempts to save life are like that though. Usually, by normal means, it is noble and Christian to save a life, because of its moral and religious value.

To make sense of all this, a distinction has to be made between the two very different situations. Of course.

[TSO]

Apart from the sheer pain of loss, some of the difficulty for observers is that we humans are story-makers. We long for a beginning, a middle, an ending, and a “good death" as was once said. It’s hard to think of so many thousands who were given no time to pray, to ask God for forgiveness, to prepare, or even to tell loved ones they love them. But we aren’t guaranteed that. Jesus said that death comes like a thief in the night. In some sense our individual stories, so often truncated or otherwise ruined, must be subsumed in the corporate story of man. Or better yet, our individual stories need all come to completion in the next life.

Heard a good illustration of that recently. A famous missionary went to a far-away country to preach the gospel with wife and son back in the 19th century. He outlived both, and after some twenty-five long years came back to his native soil. He missed America fiercely, and when he heard a brass band in New York he thought it was for him, but it turned out to be for a celebrity who happened to be on board. He searched the crowd upon disembarking for some time, expecting to see a friend, relative or fellow missionary - anyone to greet him. No one did. He went to a hotel, bitterly disappointed, and sobbed to God, “why is there no one to greet me now that I’m home?”. And he heard the reply, as clear as if said out loud, “Son, you aren’t home yet.”

[caroline]

"theologically speaking, all evil is the consequence of sin--Adam's sin and the sins since then. "

I've come to doubt this. When humans get rubbed out by natural disasters, we say it is the consequence of sin. When the dinosaurs got rubbed out, was that a consequence of sin?

[Donald R. McClarey]

"I've come to doubt this. When humans get rubbed out by natural disasters, we say it is the consequence of sin. When the dinosaurs got rubbed out, was that a consequence of sin?"

Without the Fall Man would never have known death of the body. Human death is therefore always a result of at least one sin, original sin.

[Sandra Miesel]

Funny, these ruminations of length of life and minimizing the tragedy of death because the deceased are in Heaven aren't heard when abortion is discussed--or euthanasia. Such victims aren't seen as comparable to other murdered innocents.

[Meaghan]

Going back to the original article in the WSJ by David Hart, did most Catholics who commented here actually read it or understand it? Most of the comments seem to have nothing to do with the article.

Caroline, I would refer us to revelation and the statements made regarding sin and the cosmos. If sin is as we have been taught as Catholics (I know that is what you are questioning--do you question the direct revelation of God?), why would not the immensity of it (needing the death of the incarnate Son of God), not have an effect on the cosmos?

[Matthew M.]

Sandra, I think you're wrong. One of the most common excuses I've heard when talking to women who've had abortions is that they think the baby will be better off in Heaven. Indeed, it is true that it is some consolation to know that God will not damn the soul of an innocent aborted child. Often recovering women will ask their child to pray for them.

And it does sound similar to the argument above, about innocents, you are right.

But most perniciously wrong ideas are the right idea with an evil twist. The critical distinction, as I made clear above, is that God alone chooses the time of death. It can fill us with a legimitate mourning, sadness, and sense of loss. But can it truly have been said to have been at the 'wrong' time? Certainly not in the same sense that me exercising my free will to kill somebody is 'wrong'.

It's a glaring distinction. God gives life, and calls us home sometimes when we don't expect it. Perhaps he's choosing the moment as an unseen mercy to us. Perhaps the death is in some way critical to another's conversion. But if a woman aborts her child, she is assuming a role God rarely delegates to man, as the destroyer of human life. It is contrary to his will, even though he works to bring good from it.

[Lawrence King]

Matthew, you made some good and powerful points.

I'm not convinced by your rebuttal to michigancatholic's point about Lazarus. You said that Jesus didn't weep until he saw Mary and Martha's sorrow. This is true. But even if this means that Jesus didn't weep for Lazarus but rather wept in empathy for his sisters' pain, shouldn't Christians at least weep in empathy for the survivors whose family members died?

You touched on another point: we will all die. Something like 150,000 people die each day. We are mourning for the 155,000 who died on December 26 even though the seven days since then have seen similar tolls. Is this because of the pictures? or because they were so sudden and so young?

Augustine didn't mourn his mother's death, but maybe that was because his faith was the kind of mountain-moving faith that is a special gift of the Spirit. I believe in heaven, but I can't see the soul of a baby going there, whereas I can see a dead baby. So I think it is proper for Christians to mourn.

A voice was heard in Ramah,
sobbing and loud lamentation;
Rachel weeping for her children,
and she would not be consoled,
since they were no more.

[Matthew M.]

Lawrence, thanks for continuing the conversation. And that's a good point about Jesus weeping for the families.

Now, let me be clear, though. I wouldn't dream of criticizing anybody for mourning. Nor for choosing some deaths to mourn rather than others. Human life is an incredible, valuable gift, and God no doubt expected us to cherish it, take good care with it, and use it well. Since we are to be compassionate and respect things made in the image of God, we will always mourn the loss of human life.

My point was different, rather. It's the manner in which we mourn. The way in which we formulate our response to it. What provoked my question was seeing people who, ostensibly Christian, are angry at God for being so terribly unfair and senseless, for being so arbitrary and cruel.

From a secular point of view, these responses make perfect sense. David Hart can call it blasphemous, or an odious banality if it pleases him, but it does no disservice to God or the dead to recognize that compared to eternity, life here is either infinitely short, or slightly more infinitely short, and our suffering, however great, is assuredly balanced by an eternity in God's presence. Knowing this doesn't diminish the pain and loss we feel for loved ones or strangers who die, perhaps not a bit. It hurts. We imagine their pain, and we're thankful to be safe, far from tidal waves and terrorists.

But I would think being a Christian would change they way we deal with the unexpected loss of human life. Let me posit this: A Christian and a non-Christian should absolutely be distinguishable by the way they approach death, in others and in themselves. I'd like to know exactly how. But I know they should. Our faith, if it shapes anything, shapes how we as Christians view suffering and death.

[Faith]

Good question. A hundred years from now, we will all have been through it, and be in one place or the other. Until then, please pray for the souls of me and mine, as I will for you and yours, and together, we should pray for those who do not pray, for Christ wants us all to be with Him, as this is why we were created in the first place.

[Sandra Miesel]

I'm not aware that prolifers have shown detachment about the deaths of aborted babies or euthanasia victims on the grounds that the victims are in Heaven. Abortion is not more horrible than infanticide. I'm questioning the difference in response to the tragedies of victims killed by other humans and victims killed by natural disasters or pure accidents.
I'm the one who first mentioned the failure to issue warnings about the tsunami because of ridiculous "diplomatic considerations." Prompt warnings would indeed have saved many (but by no omeans all) lives. The survivors would have been left just as hungry, thirsty, destitute and at risk of disease. This is the entire eastern shoreline of the Indian Ocean we're talking about! Wouldn't the property losses count as a disaster even if deaths were minimized? Don't we consider the recent Florida hurricanes to have been a disaster despite few relatively deaths? Are we allowed to consider such events as the Lisbon earthquake and tsunami "natural disasters" because they could not have been predicted or prevented?

[Jeff Z.]

I think Christians can be too glib in explaining away "the problem of evil". Natural disaster and calamity are "unfathonable". The most we can say is that Jesus who is the most innocent man who ever walked the face of the earth suffered and died a most tortuous and unjust death. On the Cross, God embraced all human suffering and tragedy in His Son. God is always with us, no matter how dark our life may be. But make no mistake about it, human life can be very dark.
I think our faith needs to be purified from the tendency to say things and believe things that make us feel good. Consider the "dark night" that St. Terese, the Little Flower went through before her death where she even was tempted to doubt the existence of heaven. Consider the struggles Mother Teresa had with the apparent silence of God and the darkness of faith. Also it would be good for all Christians to read the history of the "Black Death" which occurred in Europe c. 1350 AD. One-third of the population of Europe died. 80% of clergy and religious. If one nun or monk got the disease, chances are the entire convent or monastery was doomed. If one member of a family got it, the entire family most likely would die. Most of the religious and priests who cared for the sick contracted the disease and died. Many priests, monks and nuns abandoned their vows because of the tremendous suffering all around them. Mothers and fathers abandoned sick children. Children abandoned sick parents. And God seemed not to hear the cry of the poor and God seemed to be silent. God even seemed to be the cause of the disaster and it was considered by many as His punishment.

[Phil]

An honest and eloquent piece. Thanks for the link, Amy! And a great ending:

"it is only charity that can sustain
us against "fate," and that must do
so until the end of days."

DAVID B. HART is a name I'll keep in mind. The WSJ states he wrote "The Beauty of the Infinite." Is anyone here familiar with it?

[corinne]

I've been wanting to get my hands on a copy of The Beauty of the Infinite, but it's quite pricey. And out of print, too (at least according to Amazon.com). But David Hart has written many wonderful articles for First Things (such as "Christ and Nothing" and "Freedom and Decency"), as well one for the New Criterion.

[Lawrence King]

Matthew, I agree that Christian voices and atheistic voices should be distinguishable when mourning a tragedy like this tsunami, or an atrocity like 9/11.

But to me, they already are distinguishable. The Pope, George Bush, and secular commentators sound different. For starters, Catholics pray for the dead and their families, Protestants pray for the families, and secularists don't talk about prayer at all.

[Phil]

Corinne, thank you for your helpful comment on David B. Hart. I'll look around for his articles.

[Henry Dieterich]

I'm sure that Mr. Hart is both holier and more learned than I am. And I would not be inclined to doubt that he is a Christian of sincere and true faith. But I don't think it helps the cause of the Gospel to accuse one's fellow Christians of "odious banalities about God's inscrutable counsels or blasphemous suggestions all this mysteriously serves God's good ends" because they reaffirm to goodness of God in the face of human suffering. Ultimately, it is only God who can issue the final judgement on any event. Our duty to succor the suffering is clear; but as C.S. Lewis said, "The action of Pity will last forever: but the passion of Pity will not." Helping the suffering must not cause us to doubt God for an instant, even if we have no verbal answer to the unanswerable question "why?" but only our lives and our fortunes.

Christians do know something unbelievers do not know. We know Christ, and Him crucified. We know that it is central to the plan of God to take all human suffering on Himself. "For the joy that was set before Him He endured the Cross"--but the pains He suffered were real pains, just as our pain is real pain. It is not odious to say that God's counsels are inscrutable, because they are. It is not blasphemous to say that God's plan is perfect love for all His creatures whom He has created, because it is. We are sometimes called to suffer for Christ, with Christ, and in Christ, identifying ourselves with Him who identified Himself with us, and to come to the aid of those who suffer as He did for us when we were like sheep without a shepherd, lost and miserable and much to be pitied, even though we did not know it.

For us in this passing world, suffering and death are our common property. In this sterile and coddled age we forget that for most of the human race throughout space and time, life has been brief and hard. We expect comfort and life as if they were inherent rights, not the free and unmotivated gifts of God, rare and precious. The evil of murder is in the act of taking a life, not the dying per se. The murderer's knife sent Maria Goretti to the joys of heaven; it was not evil because of that. The evil of her death was in the lustful and murderous will of her murderer, who had he not repented, would have gone to hell, not for making a saint, but for willing the destruction of the greatest natural gift of God. To be sure, the survivors of the tsunami suffer pain, and the loss of those who have died is grievous to them and to us. But they were not murdered. If there is evil in their deaths, it is in any way in which they might have been warned to avoid it by those who wilfully chose not to do so.

God is not the author of evil, though in some way He is the author of pain. That we can feel pain is a great blessing. A person who has been paralyzed or has Hansen's disease, who has lost the ability to feel pain, is at great risk for infections that cause the loss of body parts or death unless he takes special precautions. Similarly if we could not feel pain, we should be unaware of our own finitude and mortality. Since the world we are in is temporary, it is well that we should not be too comfortable in it. I haven't suffered much, compared to some people I know; but I thank God for what I have suffered, because it has made me trust Him all the more and see things just a little bit from His perspective.

[corinne]

Just one quick note: Hart's book is still in print, in paperback form.