I've never known a person not touched by evil, pain, suffering. But I have known many people who have never known joy.
The other day, while I was sitting in a park photographing cedar waxwings (not my photo), an old salt-of-the-earth New Englander asked me a question. He had recently seen a bird, a black bird with red patches on its wings. "I have never seen one before. Do you know what it was?" I cheerfully told him that it was one of my favorites, the red-winged blackbird (not my photo either). I told him all I knew of the bird, and the old man continued on his way. But it was clear that the man, who surely seemed to have his wits about him, had never seen what is utterly a common bird in New England. Since the beginning of this essay (this morning) I have had several visit my feeders just outside the window, and they are always busy flitting about wetlands everywhere. They are remarkably obvious birds, extremely chatty, very active. It is hard to imagine that there are people around who have not seen one of them.
But then again, there are all kinds of things that surprise us, not least of which is that there are people who have never even been loved. This may be too hard for us to entertain even in the most detached, academic way. We do not know how such a fact could ever be possible. But reality is often too much for us, especially when that reality so thoroughly contradicts our experience: There are people who have not been loved for one second of their lives. How could this happen?
Perhaps there is some solace, and a small answer, in the pronouncement that God loves those who are unloved, or even unlovable. But it is not a very convincing sort of solace; we are not convinced that this is enough to restore someone who has never been loved to any sense of self worth. After an encounter with a very sad man on a city street (I was working as a photojournalist at the time), and after a very brief argument with an editor at the newspaper where I worked, I wrote the following poem:
In human interest
I submit the photoshopped images to the news queue
a disfigured head, gigantesque in its distortion
twisted grin his normal straight
brow like the elephant man’s
I pull them up to show you and you
give a face that has sales written all over it
I remember meeting this news feature
before you either saw him as news or
even as a feature:
He was sitting on a bench, where else?I say, I wonder if anyone ever loved him.
on Main Street near Railroad Ave.
his head twice the size of most
fairground balloons
I wondered whether he had ever been touched
What’s your name? I asked.
Johhhhhnnnyyyy! he replied, Ya gaht aaany mmmonnney?
I emptied my pockets, a few bucks and I handed it to him.
At that instant a cab pulled up to the curb, and Johnny
jumped in. I laughed, but knew I’d be back for more.
You say, you’re too philosophical to be a
journalist.
I say, thank you. Really.
You walk away muttering about your circulation.
***
It seems like a loveless world. Darwin tells us, when we really think about it, that it is all about competition: there is no equality in Darwin's mean streets, there is no rest or peace or promise of uninterrupted comfort anywhere on the face of the earth. We balk at this, or we kick at the portents of atheism in so much Darwin-inspired, dread-saturated, post-modern emptiness. We wonder how a people who demand so much meaning out of life, who expect justice and love and joy, could have evolved from a primordial ooze that is utterly without meaning. How does the desire for purpose evolve from purposelessness; how does the want for love evolve from lovelessness?
Life does not seem fair: the child born with no face (as shown recently on TV); the newborn boy discarded in a garbage pail, now pushed from orphanage to orphanage; those families crammed into railroad cars heading toward gas chambers. I ask how it is that, if we've evolved from nothing, we then don't blame nothing for evil, or how we even see anything as evil at all. Why, if the radical evolutionists are right, why do we even care about suffering, or why would we blame God, if, indeed, there is no God at all? How did we get here, when our starting point was the void? It's as if we fundamentally defy as creatures the very physics of the universe, where it is a law that you can't get more energy out of a thing than what's in it. How is it that humans can demand, inspire or expect more meaning and love than the meaningless, loveless universe from whence they came can ever offer?
Life does not seem fair: the child born with no face (as shown recently on TV); the newborn boy discarded in a garbage pail, now pushed from orphanage to orphanage; those families crammed into railroad cars heading toward gas chambers. I ask how it is that, if we've evolved from nothing, we then don't blame nothing for evil, or how we even see anything as evil at all. Why, if the radical evolutionists are right, why do we even care about suffering, or why would we blame God, if, indeed, there is no God at all? How did we get here, when our starting point was the void? It's as if we fundamentally defy as creatures the very physics of the universe, where it is a law that you can't get more energy out of a thing than what's in it. How is it that humans can demand, inspire or expect more meaning and love than the meaningless, loveless universe from whence they came can ever offer?
***
Did God create death camps? Did God create cigarettes, guns, nuclear bombs, chainsaws, alcohol, crystal meth? Is God responsible for polluted rivers, polluted air? Did He make us fly jets across the Atlantic, scarring the atmosphere; did He make us fly planes into skycrapers, skyscrapers that He built on fill in Lower Manhattan?
If there is a proof for the existence of God I might think it resides here, that humans blame Him for the things they created. One might also find an argument for the existence of God in His apparent absence: if I were God I might hide from humanity too. But there really is nothing hidden about God, as He is evident in every wingbeat of the red-winged blackbird. Heidegger's haunting question might even help us see God even where Heidegger could not: How is that there is anything here at all? What keeps everything from slipping into the abyss of non-being?
For some of us, the question might get us to begging, begging for a miracle. We want intervention (and we want it NOW!) not realizing that the very squirrels and birds and grasses and winds are divine signs. God is at work. Jesus may have impressed His disciples by walking on water. But the miracle is not in the walking, it is in the water; that there is any water at all. Raising the dead is miraculous, no doubt, but not anymore miraculous than that there was any person who lived in the first place. Sadly, we are too dulled, or too fearful, to live in the miraculous. We comfort ourselves in the presence of natural laws, oblivious, mostly, that the predictability of nature is often illusory and, more importantly, that the very laws themselves are miraculous. Breathing is really more of a miracle than Christ's resurrection. In fact, I believe He rose from the dead to prove that very thing, granting us life eternal so that we might breathe forevermore. But we hardly notice the miraculous in the commonplace until the wind is knocked out of us, or when we sense our last inhale will indeed be our very last.
If there is a proof for the existence of God I might think it resides here, that humans blame Him for the things they created. One might also find an argument for the existence of God in His apparent absence: if I were God I might hide from humanity too. But there really is nothing hidden about God, as He is evident in every wingbeat of the red-winged blackbird. Heidegger's haunting question might even help us see God even where Heidegger could not: How is that there is anything here at all? What keeps everything from slipping into the abyss of non-being?
For some of us, the question might get us to begging, begging for a miracle. We want intervention (and we want it NOW!) not realizing that the very squirrels and birds and grasses and winds are divine signs. God is at work. Jesus may have impressed His disciples by walking on water. But the miracle is not in the walking, it is in the water; that there is any water at all. Raising the dead is miraculous, no doubt, but not anymore miraculous than that there was any person who lived in the first place. Sadly, we are too dulled, or too fearful, to live in the miraculous. We comfort ourselves in the presence of natural laws, oblivious, mostly, that the predictability of nature is often illusory and, more importantly, that the very laws themselves are miraculous. Breathing is really more of a miracle than Christ's resurrection. In fact, I believe He rose from the dead to prove that very thing, granting us life eternal so that we might breathe forevermore. But we hardly notice the miraculous in the commonplace until the wind is knocked out of us, or when we sense our last inhale will indeed be our very last.
***
We can ask where God is in the midst of suffering, as long as we are asking where we are in the midst of it, too. As we have seen, God has taken the blame for creation, for suffering, for evil; and He has taken the blame for things He did not even create. There should be joy in this news; we should receive this news with dancing and laughter and merriment. But we have even grown used to joy, I am afraid, even when it comes so rarely; good news is old news, and even joy seems tired, boring, predictable. We are too worldly to laugh, to dance in the freedom of forgiveness, to drink deep draughts of holy, redeemed merriment. Holiness, joy, redemption, forgiveness -- these are greeted with a big yawn by the all-knowing sophisticates we think we are. We snicker at the idea of a banquet with a Holy Family, because we know families, and they are all broken and disappointing. Laugh for a while, we say, but before long you'll be at each others' throats, just like so many holidays with our own too-often unholy families. Heaven? bliss? No thanks. That's for those who need such assurances.
***
The Christian message is simple regarding suffering, and it is painful. God loves both the murderer and the murdered, and He knows what it is to be both. He cannot stop being all-knowing, all-present, and thus is always both victim and victimizer. To intervene in world affairs in terms familiar to us, action figures that we think we are, would be for God to have to choose sides. But God is, until time has run out, on all sides: He is a Yankees and Red Sox fan; He roots for Manchester United as fervently as He roots for Arsenal. In short, He cheers on people, not ideologies, except the Gospel itself. He did not root for Hitlerism, but surely He adored Hitler. He did not root for Arafat's hatred, but surely He loved Arafat. He did not love the blood on King David's hands, but surely He loved the hands that were David's. The red-winged blackbird killed by a goshawk in my yard recently, killed right before my eyes, was no less loved by God than the goshawk that carried the dead bird away. After all, had God stopped the hawk from smashing that helpless blackbird into the side of my house, right next to me, would He not have had to bring the whole cosmos to a halt?
The Gospel of Christ declares this: That God loves you more than He loves His own life, and even His own joy. Better to be with you in hell than in heaven without you. Better to crucify the Creator than to stop Creation. Better to bring God to a screeching halt than the hawk in its deadly flight. Better to bring God to the grave than Hitler to annihilation.
Strange, though, how few people point out that Hitler was indeed stopped. No one seems to thank God for that, do they? Perhaps God did intervene -- perfectly, the only way Omniscience can. He KNOWS what He is doing, right? Otherwise, He can't be God. And if He is not God, we are indeed pitiable, and lost.
"Come unto me, all you who labor, and I will give you rest." It is always a good thing to remember that the very first miracle that Jesus performed was to make more wine. Sounds exactly like the sort of message one would expect of a God who cares, who pays attention.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil, The New Yorker
The Gospel of Christ declares this: That God loves you more than He loves His own life, and even His own joy. Better to be with you in hell than in heaven without you. Better to crucify the Creator than to stop Creation. Better to bring God to a screeching halt than the hawk in its deadly flight. Better to bring God to the grave than Hitler to annihilation.
Strange, though, how few people point out that Hitler was indeed stopped. No one seems to thank God for that, do they? Perhaps God did intervene -- perfectly, the only way Omniscience can. He KNOWS what He is doing, right? Otherwise, He can't be God. And if He is not God, we are indeed pitiable, and lost.
"Come unto me, all you who labor, and I will give you rest." It is always a good thing to remember that the very first miracle that Jesus performed was to make more wine. Sounds exactly like the sort of message one would expect of a God who cares, who pays attention.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Hitler, Theodicy, Problem of Evil, The New Yorker
8 comments:
ASTOUNDING! I'm at a loss. LOL to think that with my last comment I thought I would get YOU thinking. This has undoubtedly got my wheels turning about things that no one could "answer" for me. Not to burst the bubble that I want you to have, but I'm not getting "answers" really just a different view of what I thought was "unanswerable." Great, great, great article. You are a truly wise person.
p.s. I would like to point out that I got your comment to my post, and you are the first link to my blog-hopping project. I hope I did justice for your blog, and hope even more that more people follow that link so they too, can read these remarkable topics. Well done!
My friend, Irish Eyes.
You have given me a great deal of joy and encouragement. You cannot know what this all means to me. Thank you.
I know that we do not know each other; we both know that I do not know your family. But it is odd that I FEEL that I know you; and I FEEL that I was even present, in a way, at your recent wedding. You cannot know the honor I was given to learn that you and your mother danced to the song I recommended. I had tears in my eyes reading your mom's blog about the whole lovely affair. You are a good son to her; and you will be a wonderful husband and father.
We may be strangers, but we are friends. Peace.
BG
I can't see to type...
That's my kid...and a friend.
God bless you both!
Bill,
This was, is, a great article and stream of thought. Thank you.
Victor
My dear WI Catholic,
Tears of joy. How beautiful! Your story is filled with beauty, with grace.
Peace to you,
BG
Victor,
What a great name (I've said that before, no?).
I am glad that you enjoyed this series. It was a bit of a hard one for me to get out, but I am grateful I did. It is all about grace, isn't it? How apropos that your own story -- difficult, yet beautiful in that it is filled with God -- involves a man named Victor.
Peace.
BG
Bill, a great series! I am pleased to have found it, albeit a year after it first appeared. It is good read comment that I can identify with, even if I don’t fully agree.
May I still comment?
In ‘Part I’ you dismiss the freewill argument and from then on expound the omniscience argument. In true Catholic tradition I have to say that I both agree and disagree with you. It is omniscience that has given us the freewill.
In ‘Part IV’, I detect that you are tending towards the freewill argument.
In a discussion with Lee on DC recently he proposed that freewill was not a valid response to the argument of evil as God could have created a world in which we did not need to learn the lessons which we gained from freewill and offers suggestions how it could be done – he assumes a delightful omniscience for himself. While he presents a world with no negatives, in which I argued there would be no growth or development, you present a more realistic omniscience, but one that is perhaps hard to defend.
If I understood your argument it says (forgive the super short summary) that the way it is, is the best way based on God being omniscient. You explain very well how that is so. I fear though that in rejecting freewill you have denied yourself a reason which confirms the omniscience of God.
I won’t try to state my whole argument so late in the life of your post, sufficient to say that IF we are created in God’s image then implicit in that is a level of responsibility and a level of learning.
You see God’s intervention in the world in the way it is being better than the way it could have been. I see God’s intervention in providing us with the revelation of his will to guide us - the rest sadly is the consequence of our freewill. I see a negative in the state of the world, you see a positive!
Nor do I see us as abandoned in our plight even now. I see the power of prayer at work in God enabling those who seek a better world, those who seek to alleviate suffering. It is all about the soul and we have so much opportunity to ready ours to answer the “ … and you did what about it?” question.
Bless you
My dear Akakiwibear,
I am thrilled that you found your way here. Your comments are trenchant, thoughtful and so very welcome. Thank you.
I think a closer reading of my articles will show that I have not downplayed free-will. I have attempted to destroy what has been considered paradoxical. We surely do have free-will; my point is two-fold. First, that those who are most free in their choices are those who say "No" to God; God let's them go, and they are free indeed, free to make whatever choice they want to call their own. Second, those who accept God's offer are indeed free when they accept Him; it's just that they are stopped by humility, for humble folks recognize that God has given us the "freedom" in the first place: Our "freedom" is not really our creation. Only in the negative can freedom truly create. In The Lord of the Rings, the only self-made, totally free being is the most evil being, Sauron, for he lacks the proper humility: he believes nothing about himself is contingent (the ring will guarantee that). But humility freely admits that the choice was presented to us; our freedom is a contingency, and hence is something we enjoy only by God's decision to bring us that choice.
But, once we say "Yes" to God, surely we are free at last -- fully -- to be what we were meant to me. We can choose to love and forgive and heal and pray and serve and rejoice and play. That this might lead to another paradox is probable; perhaps I have not been successful at all.
Yes, Lee was being, as we might say, presumptuous. I think his argument mostly absurd. The impetus for his position is real and palpable, but the presumption is born of over-reaching, or so I believe. Not that I am not guilty of the same crime, mind you.
Nietzsche, my favorite atheist, said (in Beyond Good and Evil) that suffering brings out the very best in humans; without it, humans would not strive for justice, would not find what is best in themselves, and would not create solutions to problems. A truer statement could not be made, if you ask me. But Christianity says something more about all of this, for I think it says that the ONLY way for God to give us a chance at joining Him in our (self-)creation is for us to make a choice in the midst of suffering. If Lee's world was the world in which we live, we would be nothing more than automatons. The world presented as it is provides us with the opportunity to affirm from the bottom of our hearts that we want to be saints, that we want to genuinely love, that we want goodness and life to endure forever. This affords us the opportunity to truly participate in creation. It gives us a chance to redeem the universe, to bring it back from the abyss (so to speak).
But ultimately my series is about this: Even if God predestined us to be evil, and even if He predestined us to suffer, the Incarnation offers us a way out: The Crucifixion introduces free choice to our world. Those who reject it declare that they love suffering, and that they do not require a solution or an answer; those who accept it discover their choice was not fully their own, and that all subsequent choices are freely made in the safety of infinite grace and love.
Peace to you, dear soul.
Bill Gnade
Post a Comment