Let me start with our reading list.
First, we are reading (by first I don't mean we are reading these chronologically) Night by Elie Wiesel. This is some powerful, powerful stuff. If you're unfamiliar, I'll give a synopsis: Wiesel is a survivor of Auschwitz. Through this book Wiesel shares his account of his time there and the affect it had on his faith.
I read most of it last night. It made me want to watch Inglorious Basterds. I need to see some Nazi bashing (literally in the case of IB).
We are also reading CS Lewis' The Problem of Pain, Lament for a Son by Nicholas Wolterstorff, and The Problem of Evil edited by Michael Peterson. There's some good stuff in there. And some really hard to trog through stuff. (I think I just made up the word trog, but think of trying to walk through a recently drained lake bed.)
We are starting by establishing that the 'problem of evil' comes when you try to rectify evil and suffering with a God who is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving). In other words, why does a God who controls and knows everything and loves all of his creation allow them to suffer?
Today we are talking about God's omnipotence. Just before our break (which we are on now) our instructor asked us to write down our definition of omnipotence. I guess I'll share mine (feel free to share your own in the comments).
To say that God is omnipotent (all-powerful) is to say that – God has the ability to do anything, but the wisdom to act within self-given limits.
Thoughts?
*update* 12:05 pm - I should have said that I am reading Night again. I read it in high school. I remember it being one of the few required books that I actually liked (I can't say I enjoyed it necessarily). But that was 20 years ago, so I'm glad I get to read it again. Not only do I get to read it, I also get to write a book review on it tonight! Woo hoo!
*update* 12:15 pm - @Eric - Yeah, I know. I brought omniscience into the equation. Let me think a little.. that was my '3 minute' definition. Plus, I am still in class. I should be listening and taking notes.
*update* 12:26 pm - Kierkegaard - "It is only a miserable and world picture of power to say that it becomes greater in proportion as it compels and makes things dependent."
*update* 1:00 pm - Nice quote from CS Lewis in The Problem of Pain - "The freedom of God consists in the fact that no cause other than Himself produces His acts and no external obstacle impedes them - that his own goodness is the root from which they all grow and His own omnipotence the air in which they all flower." (p. 27)
*update* 1:20 pm - I can't decide - what is more annoying: sitting next to someone eating a bowl of cereal or sitting next to someone eating an apple? Discuss.
Night is one of my all-time favorite books. A small-easy book, but so much to digest. Glad that you are reading it.
ReplyDeleteTrog = Slog, only thicker? Or maybe, slogging as interpreted by trolls.
ReplyDeleteWiesel is a favorite. Everything he writes is just beautiful.
Just to push a little... can you define "omnipotent" without the wisdom qualifier?
I think your definition went too far - you went from what does omnipotent mean, to why would an omnipotent God allow evil to exist. Each of the three words' definitions have nothing to do with the questions of how God could be all three and still allow evil.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to be critical - just suggesting that you don't have to start trying to solve the class's problem in defining the terms.
To me, omnipotence in its most basic form means the power (potency) to do anything/everything (omni). Omnipotence itself has nothing to do with knowledge or love (the root of the other two words in the problem).
Where we have to start offering explanations is when we try to reconcile our understanding of the character of God (how all of God's traits combine to make God who God is), especially as that character is revealed in Jesus, with the specific traits that we understand are part of God's make-up.
Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your viewpoint, all of that is much more complicated than can be reduced to a simple problem statement like that, even if we believe we may have arrived at a simply stated answer to that problem.
We can discuss the ideas I have come to hold on the solution later in the class. :-) Keep sharing, man!
My personal solution to the question of theodicy is to ask, "who am I to judge God?" It is pretty impertinent to say that I know how God should act (or not act) based upon my definition of 'loving.'
ReplyDeleteBut my personal solution is no solution at all to one who is experiencing evil/pain and crying out to God for relief.
Ah! The question of millenniums...My thoughts are similar to Eric: "Who am I to judge God?" However, it does seem that that question implies intention on God's part in given circumstances.
ReplyDeleteHow is God's omnipotence expressed?: "I Am". It seems God's omnipotence is expressed with intent beyond circumstances. I have chosen to not judge God on how omnipotence is expressed. "I Am" is "I Am", and I'm learning to find my peace with not knowing exactly how God does or will express omnipotence. Whether God acts proactively on the front end or redemptively on the back end is God's prerogative.
I have also learned over these many months that faith and feeling are separate. I've always "known" that, but until recently, I'd never experienced these being separated. In the dark and "Lenten" times, we sometimes must actively choose to walk in faith though feelings may be severely lagging, trusting that God's omnipotence will be expressed through transformation of heart and mind.
My faith holds on to Psalm 136 & John 17, even as my feelings ride the roller coaster of reaction to circumstances.