|
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
By Cal Thomas
Published January 7, 2005
PORTSTEWART, Northern Ireland -- Throughout the United
Kingdom, following the Christmas tsunami that killed at least 150,000 people and
changed the lives of their surviving relatives forever, some are asking how a
"loving" God, if He exists, could allow such a catastrophe to happen. Another
question is, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
The questions are mostly rhetorical, since by asking them, the questioners
don't actually expect, or even desire, an answer. They are asked in an
accusatory way, as if the questions themselves indict, try and convict as fools
those who believe in God.
One counterquestion should be: Why do good things happen to bad people? The
Scriptures say, "Only God is good." All humanity is diagnosed as "sinful" and
"not righteous." Our desires are "only evil all the time." Look it up.
What about a "good God" allowing bad things? Death is the destination of all
living organisms. Some die sooner than others. Shouldn't a "good God" provide a
way to escape the grave? He has, but that requires faith, which critics and
skeptics lack.
Here's another question for those who ask the other questions: If
catastrophe proves there is no God, does charity prove He exists? Individuals in
Britain have contributed millions of pounds to the tsunami survivors, more than
their government. Most of the world's charities helping in the effort are
Christian and American.
Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim nation, yet Muslim nations,
including the fabulously wealthy Saudi regime, have given chump change compared
with those countries with majority Christian populations. Don't expect
Christians, or Americans, to gain points with those who believe America is the
"Great Satan."
Human tragedy is bad enough, but listening to some theologians trying to
explain it is doubly irritating. The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams,
wrote a Jan. 2 column for the Sunday Telegraph about the tsunami disaster. The
front-page headline about the column proclaimed, "Archbishop of Canterbury
admits: This makes me doubt the existence of God."
The headline writer misrepresented the archbishop's view, but so convoluted
was Mr. Williams' statement about the disaster (as noted by an editorial the
next day) it is understandable how the writer of the headline reached his
conclusion. Theologians should offer hope and truth. The pagans serve up enough
doubt.
Rather than attempt to bring mankind up to God's level, many skeptics try to
bring God down to man's level, remaking Him in a human image and thus
encouraging the false view that God is someone who is supposed to make us happy
and prosperous. If we are unhappy and not rich (or not rich enough), we will
deny He exists. Prosperity and good health provide their own motives for
unbelief, as C.S. Lewis and numerous other thinkers have eloquently written.
When Mr. Williams says prayer provides no "magical solutions" and most of
the stock Christian answers to human suffering do not "go very far in helping
us, one week on, with the intolerable grief and devastation in front of us,"
where would he suggest we turn, if not to God?
As with most liberal clerics who question God, more than trust Him, Mr.
Williams offers nothing from Scripture for comfort and explanation. It was the
same when Diana, princess of Wales, was killed in that Paris car crash.
Clergymen were interviewed, but none offered more than empty platitudes. What
good are the clergy if this is the best they can do? Why are they drawing
salaries paid by parishioners who might properly expect, even demand, more?
Let me, a nontheologian, offer some help to the skeptics. In Job, Chapter 1,
Job suffers a catastrophe when God allows Satan to take away his children and
worldly goods to test his faith. Job makes two statements that ought to be
remembered and repeated in times like these.
The first is, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart.
The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. May the name of the Lord be praised."
Job also says in response to his skeptical and nagging wife, "Shall we accept
good from God and not trouble?"
If you prefer a secular source, consider Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural
address. Seeking to understand the Civil War catastrophe, Lincoln concluded,
"The Almighty has His own purposes."
Those are answers (and questions) that resonate far better than the pap
coming from the skeptics and certain theologians who have their degrees, but
seem to know less about God and His nature than what causes an undersea
earthquake.
Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Copyright © 2005 News World
Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050106-092058-4358r
|
