| Book Review: The Reason for God (part 4) |

---

Buy The Reason for God by Tim Keller at amazon.com!

This is the 4th part of a lengthy interaction with Tim Keller’s recent book, The Reason for God. To start at the beginning, click here.

How Could a Good God Allow Suffering

Keller’s main point here is summarized in this quote: “With time and perspective, most of us can see good reasons for at least some [italics his] of the tragedy and pain that occurs in life.  Why couldn’t it be possible that, from God’s vantage point, there are good reasons for all of them?”  in addition, he makes the point – which is a common theme in the book, i.e., turning an argument back on itself – that if there is no standard of “good”, like God, how can we really call anything evil?  he quotes philosopher Alvin Plantinga: “A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort… and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appaling wickedness.”  in the end, Plantinga – and Keller – argue that the existence and recognition of evil is actually an argument for God.

Keller raises another interesting point, asking “Why was Jesus so much more overwhelmed by his death than others have been, even more than His own followers?”  his answer is that Jesus’ suffering on the cross was as a suffering God, and we are probably not able to imagine what being separated from God – for this first (and only?) time in all eternity, according to theology – was really like for Jesus. he quotes Jonathan Edwards: “The physical pain was nothing compared to the spiritual experience of cosmic abandonment.”  my comment to this is two-fold: (1) it rings nice and poetic, but i don’t think we could ever really make an argument based on it; (2) as i’ve argued here before, comments like this sound good on the surface – it’s like when people say, “yes, burning in hell is terrible, but the true pain will be separation from God” – but really fall flat in reality.  i mean, place your hand on a hot stove and try to say the Lord’s prayer: are you more troubled by your inability to say the Lord’s prayer or because your skin is being singed off your hand?  i think the answer is obvious.  this doesn’t minimize what Jesus did, only tries to keep it from just being used as good screenplay.  he goes even further: “On the cross He went beyond even the worst human suffering and experienced cosmic rejection and pain that exceeds ours as infinitely as his knowledge and power exceeds ours.”  again, this sounds good, but there are any number of other directions this could be taken that would argue that His ability to resist sin was much greater than ours, or that His ability to withstand pain was greater than ours, etc. etc.  in the end, God separated from God is an interesting concept, but one wonders if – like needing blood shed to forgive sin – it is ever really understandable in the slightest by mortal men and women.

i think the better point is when Keller argues, “If we embrace the Christian teaching that Jesus is God and that he went to the cross, then we have deep consolation and strength to face the brutal realities of life on earth.  We can know that God is truly Immanuel – God with us – even in our worst sufferings.”  this, then, is not so much a defense of why suffering exists, but it simply says that we have a God who was and is willing to suffer with us.  that, to me, is a beautiful picture, and one that is much more believable than God having to square a cosmic balance sheet of sin by killing Jesus.  (but, again, that’s the atonement, and we’ll talk more about that later…)

but Keller doesn’t stop here, writing, “We need something more than knowing God is with us in our difficulties.  We also need hope that our suffering is ‘not in vain.’”  here, he moves in the direction of N. T. Wright, who has repeatedly worked to paint God’s re-creation of creation itself as the main intent of His end of game, two-minute drill.  Keller seems to echo this belief, arguing that heaven and earth are going to be coming down to us, and not the other way around, in the end.  he goes a little far, though, in my opinion, when he writes, “Every horrible thing that ever happened will not only be undone and repaired but will in some way make the eventual glory and joy even greater.”  is this really promised?  is it feasible?  he even goes on to say, “Everything sad is going to come untrue and it will somehow be greater for having once been broken and lost.”  what does his reformed theology say about those in (shhhh…) h-e-l-l?  later, he quotes Dosteoevsky, who wrote, “In the world’s finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts.”  i believe this, but i don’t think it says things will be ‘undone.’  further, my universalist view and i can hope for this; anyone who believes a large majority of people will burn in hell certainly cannot.  again, it looks good on paper, and sounds good from the pulpit, but it’s like a calvinist preaching to his congregation on sunday and saying, “i want you to know that God loves every one of you.”  no, the Bible – if that’s what you’re going by – seems to say otherwise.

just ask Esau.

Continue on to Christianity is a Straightjacket.

Buy The Reason for God by Tim Keller at amazon.com!

~ by mikerucker on March 10, 2008.