Friday, February 17, 2006

Natural Disasters

I went to the Inter Varsity Fellowship meeting tonight - Dr Vinoth Ramachandra, the Sri Lankan theologian who spoke at the Veritas Forum, was back to answer more questions. We got to discuss suffering in greater depth. A girl in the audience asked him, why did God allow innocent people to suffer, especially in cases of natural disaster, where there was no human agency involved?

Dr Ramachandra spoke about how natural disasters were not "evil" in and of themselves - they were simply natural phenomena that God used to bring about ecological diversity. We all marvel at the beauty of the Himalayas, but if there had been no earthquakes, they would not have existed. What is "evil" about natural disasters is the unnecessary loss of life. Why did so many people die in the tsunami? Japan gets earthquakes and tsunamis far more frequently, but people do not die. The people in South Asia died of poverty and corruption. There was no early warning system. There were no preventative measures in place. Most of them had no means to escape. The mangrove swamps and coral reefs, nature's defense, had been destroyed by bad development throughout the years.

In New Orleans, it was also the poor who died in the hurricane. The New York Times has recently reported that House Republicans are going to issue "a blistering report ...that says the Bush administration delayed the evacuation of thousands of New Orleans residents by failing to act quickly on early reports that the levees had broken during Hurricane Katrina."

But you can still ask, why did God allow it to happen? Maybe we were responsible it, but God is all-powerful, why did he have to let the innocent people suffer? Dr Ramachandra pointed out that we sometimes assume that suffering must be punishment, and that only evil people "deserve" to suffer. But at the centre of our faith is an innocent man, the most innocent man who ever lived, the Son of God, who was crucified on our behalves. God does not watch our suffering from afar; he has entered our suffering and is counted amongst the most tragic of victims. And God did not only suffer on the cross. Throughout the Old Testament, the prophets speak of God's anguish: he suffers with a broken and spoilt creation, he suffers the pain of our rejection. In books like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Hosea, the image that comes up again and again is that of God, the faithful husband, and Israel, the faithless bride (in some instances Israel is even accused of "prostitution"). The language is vivid and graphic. God's anger reflects his passionate love for his people, for it is always the ones we love most who hurt us most deeply.

It was extremely poignant listening to Dr Ramachandra discuss the tsunami; Sri Lanka was one of the countries that was the hardest hit. Dr Ramachandra is deeply involved with working with the poor, those who were most devastated by the tsunami, helping them rebuild their lives. He spoke of having to comfort a friend who lost all five members of her family. But at no point did he turn around and blame God. He said that we often blamed God for our mistakes.

Free will gives us the occasion to reject God and choose evil, but it's a mystery why we do in fact choose to do that. Dr Ramachandra spoke about the absurdity of sin: Why do we choose to deny and reject our good and loving God? It makes no sense at all. (See The Veritas Forum at Columbia - A slight diversion: Reflections on the absurdity of sin) When we do indeed make this absurd choice, we find that everything breaks down. If the most important thing in our lives is family, tribe or nation, or wealth, power and acclaim, then we cannot love all groups of people and all persons. We might even harm others in order to further our own interests. But if God is our ultimate joy, we learn to want what he wants, and to love the way that he loves - sacrificially and indiscriminately.

God's answer to irrational rebellion, is not a theological explanation, but the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He bore the weight of the world's evil, the consequences of our sin, triumphing over it on the cross.

The essence of sin is "playing God... acting as if you, and your pleasure, were the end to which all things, God included, must be made to function as a means" (J. I. Packer). You can only explain what is reasonable, but the essence of sin is absurd. Further more, the fact that we, finite beings, cannot fathom the entirety of our Infinite Creator's plan, does not disprove his existence. (See Knowing Enough and The greatest thing you'll ever learn...)

Earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunamis are amoral natural phenomena.

It seems that it is we who are the natural disasters.

5 comments:

peish said...

Yes, I did mean "amoral" in a very loose way i.e. in opposition to us claiming that earthquakes themselves are "evil", and that because God created everything, including earthquakes, He cannot be all good. I agree that all of created nature is good, but that all of it has been affected by the Fall.

Another thing that Dr R raised, was the example of pain. Pain is just pain. Pain is good in that it is essential to survival - if not we'd all be walking around on broken legs and eating glass. Where pain is evil is when it is inflicted by one human being upon another (either because of action or inaction). He argued that we can only speak of evil where there is human agency involved.

I guess I meant "amoral" in that earthquakes, by themselves, are just earthquakes. It seems that they are instrumentally good, or bad. The same with pain. They were both created with ostensibly good purposes in mind, but all of creation has been affected by the Fall.

I tend to think of the Fall in terms of the brokenness of all relationships, including our relationship to natural phenomena. And I do agree that we are all implicitly liable for this brokenness.


I also do think that 2 is very closely related to 3 – people suffer "undeservedly" because of the sin of others (that is, we do not love God with with all our heart, mind and soul, and we do not love others as ourselves. Mark 12:29-31)

However, what do we mean when we say that people suffer "undeservedly"? Like Dr R said (para 4 of this entry), the assumption of a statement like this would probably be that only the wicked "deserve" to suffer as punishment. Is suffering necessarily punishment? At the centre of our faith is the most innocent man who ever lived, who suffered more than anyone ever did (he literally went through hell for us). Also, for those who believe in the gospel, "we know God could not be punishing us for our sin, since Jesus paid for our sins, and God cannot receive two payments. This means that whatever suffering we are receiving is not retribution, but instruction." (Keller)

And I would also point out that the Bible speaks out very strongly against injustice (which can be understood as the suffering that we bring upon others because of our sin), and calls for us to “set the oppressed free and break every yoke” (again, there is a distinctly relational aspect to what has gone wrong.)

Is this the kind of fast I have chosen,
only a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed
and for lying on sackcloth and ashes?
Is that what you call a fast,
a day acceptable to the LORD ?

"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.

Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,

and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday. – Isaiah 58:5-10


The breakdown of all relationships, with God and with each other, is the essence and consequence of sin. This is in direct contrast to the biblical vision of shalom, the way things ought to be. This is the way things will eventually be when everything is made new.

"The webbing together of God, humans, and all creation in justice, fulfillment, and delight is what the Hebrew prophets call shalom. In the Bible, shalom means universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight — a rich state of affairs…
Human communities would present their racial and regional specialties to other communities in the name of God, in glad recognition that God, too, is a radiant and hospitable community of three persons. In turn, each human being would reflect and color the light of God’s presence out of the inimitable resources of his or her own character and essence. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be…
We may safely describe evil as any spoiling of shalom, whether physically, morally, spiritually, or otherwise. Sin is the disruption or disturbance of what God has designed… Sin tends to disintegrate both its victims and its perpetrators." – Cornelius Plantinga (Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin)

peish said...

Thanks for that. I don't think I would say that it's just the rich people in Louisiana who failed to love their neighbours, for neighbour is not just a geographical term. Everyone in the world is our neighbour, really. For are we not all created in the image of God? But the distinction between particular failures because of sin (not having better disaster planning in New Orleans) and the more general disruption of all relationships (with each other, with nature, with our work) is helpful =)

Check out this very interesting account of a gospel attitude towards personal suffering: Don't Waste Your Cancer, by John Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2006/021506.html)

peish said...

Yes indeed. Very helpful discussion about the "line of despair".

John Piper, when discussing his own experience with cancer in "Don't Waste Your Cancer", states this point quite succintly.

"It will not do to say that God only uses our cancer but does not design it. What God permits, he permits for a reason. And that reason is his design. If God foresees molecular developments becoming cancer, he can stop it or not. If he does not, he has a purpose. Since he is infinitely wise, it is right to call this purpose a design. Satan is real and causes many pleasures and pains. But he is not ultimate. So when he strikes Job with boils (Job 2:7), Job attributes it ultimately to God (2:10) and the inspired writer agrees: “They . . . comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him” (Job 42:11). If you don’t believe your cancer is designed for you by God, you will waste it."

He also goes on to say that cancer is not a curse or a punishment. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). And that the Lord will supply our every need. “My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:19). (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2006/021506.html)

I also agree that our immediate community should definitely be one of our priorities.

"Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." (Jeremiah 29:7)

The Bible also takes into account familial obligations - parents and children, husbands and wives etc

However, I also do think that the depth of the need should also be taken into consideration. Those in Africa, though far away, are suffering far more than most people in our close proximity. This point really hit home when I realised, to my great horror, that the kids that I help out with in the South Bronx (rife with gangs, highest HIV infection rate and incidence of teenaged pregnancy in New York), are actually so much luckier than so many of the kids in Africa. It seems ridiculous to be comparing suffering and injustice but I do think that the degree of need does have a claim on us. (After all, the good Samaritan did not take into account tribal differences that would have been decisive at his time, but simply gave where he saw need. Given the advent of modern technology, I do think it's very clear that we do in fact see the need in places far away. The world is much smaller now.)

I do not think that Christianity becomes some impossible, impersonal consequentialist theory where we end up living miserable ascetic lives after having given everything away (I've seen the "love thy neighbour" commandment cited so often in consequentialist and anti-consequentialist writings!). I think that God calls us into service, that we all have unique contributions to make in the grand scheme of his perfect plan, and that he guides us every step of the way.

peish said...

What Pope Benedict would say: The parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:25-37) offers two particularly important clarifications. Until that time, the concept of “neighbour” was understood as referring essentially to one's countrymen and to foreigners who had settled in the land of Israel; in other words, to the closely-knit community of a single country or people. This limit is now abolished. Anyone who needs me, and whom I can help, is my neighbour. The concept of “neighbour” is now universalized, yet it remains concrete. Despite being extended to all mankind, it is not reduced to a generic, abstract and undemanding expression of love, but calls for my own practical commitment here and now. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

peish said...

Yup! =)

Ok!