Fight Evil. Don't Explain Evil.

Two (at this writing) of you yesterday plugged Gregory Boyd's God at War as your preferred way to think about how to respond in faith to suffering without having to explain why things don't always go well, faith or no. 

I thought that might be worth a little filling out.  In a nutshell (and we'll see if this seems fairly stated or not), Boyd at some length argues that evil and suffering are to be fought, not explained.  We're in a brutal, cosmic, very real and consequential spiritual battle by virtue of being alive.  And battles have casualties. 

He makes the powerful and seemingly-irrefutable point that trying to explain suffering never goes well.  We can try for some classic church answers like, "Because of free will, evil had to be introduced to the world to give us real choice, and so, because our original ancestors chose disobedience, suffering and evil are facts of life in the world."  That may be true, but you could make the case that that never helped anyone who was actually suffering. 

Now, that said, as I watch my friend suffer, I'm not sure Boyd's answer does any more for me than all the old heady answers.  But it does encourage me to stand by my friend and "fight evil" through prayer and faith rather than wasting much time asking why bad things happen to good people, and that does seem like a plus. 

Are you helped by thinking of yourself as living in the midst of and fighting a spiritual battle?  How so?

Comments

[bsergott]

I have had an ongoing love/hate relationship with warfare and battle language associated with Christianity. On the one hand, it is very off-putting when dealing with secular liberals or anyone who practices non-violence as a life discipline. On the other hand, it is very helpful for understanding the casualties and loss of life.

I guess, for me, I have seen people in the Church historically take the battle from being against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms to being personified and against particular individuals that the Christians deem to be immoral or pagan. In other words, judgmental Christians lose sight of the unseen enemy and look for a flesh and blood enemy. Then, labels like Antichrist get thrown around. That is not helpful.

I do believe, however, that we are in a constant battle, where the Kingdom of God is pushing back the darkness and evil of this present age. I think we need a new construct to help believers stay on task in focusing on the evil forces of the enemy, not particular people. Somehow, the framework, itself, needs to be reworked to push people to fight the good fight. Greg Boyd also talks about how the Church is not known for being the place where someone can find grace and love. We have to realize that this battle is not fought by stamping out sinners, but by prayer and by loving people into life. When we pray for a broken person to be healed or set free from demonic influences, then we are fighting the battle. The darkness is getting pushed back. THAT is the kind of idea of warfare that I find both palatable and helpful.

[leah]

This has been a tough week wrestling with these questions. On Sunday an old friend of mine was run down by a drunk driver. The more I think about this the more I throw up my hands and say, "I can't understand anything about you God!"

On the other hand, it makes me want to get to know Jesus better. I may not understand the universe and causality and the will of its maker, but I do know that Jesus was a person who lived through this stuff like the rest of us.

Not deep but that's where I'm at this week.

[Crispin Schroeder]

In my early years as a Christian the first churches that I was a part of were very Charismatic so there was a lot of emphasis on spiritual warfare, spiritual gifts like tongues and prophecy, and on faith. While those were certainly exciting years I also saw a lot of manipulation, legalism, abuses of spiritual gifts and abuses of people as well as name-it-claim-it prosperity/healing gospel stuff. As a result I swung to the other end of things preferring something that wouldn't hurt people and be more palatable to the unchurched.

Then I found Vineyard and it was the first place that I began to experience a balance. One term that I have come to love in the Vineyard is "naturally supernatural" and it's underlying idea that one can operate in the gifts of the Spirit in a more natural or normal (human) way. But sometimes I think instead of being naturally supernatural I am just being a little too naturally natural. This is probably due to some lingering hangups from some bad experiences in the world of Charismania.

Boyd's thoughts on spiritual warfare have really helped me on the supernatural side of naturally supernatural. This has as much to do with what he writes as the way he does church and lives his own life (as far as I can tell from here). What really rings true with me is that he frames spiritual warfare in a way that is not just prayer or spiritual disciplines but in everyday life such as loving people, taking care of the poor, and confronting evil wherever we may find it. So back to the question - has his thoughts on spiritual warfare helped me? Absolutely. But I would agree that they don't offer much comfort when suffering and hard times come. But at the very least I think his theology has helped me feel more empowered in the midst of the struggle.

[brian]

I confess to not being helped that much by thinking of my life in terms of "spiritual warfare," if by that phrase one means praying against demons and anointing rooms with oil to keep out spirits and things of that nature (not sure who--if anyone?--here sees it that way, but I have known plenty of folks who do). I don't think doing those types of actions are bad or wrong--it just doesn't help me at all.
But the notion of fighting evil--fighting it in all kinds of ways, not just prayer (but including prayer)--instead of explaining it appeals to me immensely, and has helped me in practical ways even recently. Greg Boyd is a hero of mine in the world of faith, and his other books are just as good as this one, in my opinion.

[Sort of funny/disconcerting side note: that figurine on the cover of Boyd's book pictured above is actually a bronze statue of the ancient Canaanite deity Ba'al, whom the Israelites are repeatedly commanded not to worship. I don't know if the publishers thought that readers would know this and thus see themselves as fighting the demonic and forbidden Ba'al, or, rather more likely, that they didn't know what it was and just put it on the cover as an image of battle. But it's kind of an ironic image, in biblical terms!?]

[Vinceation]

"naturally supernatural" has been one of my favorite Vineyard phrases/characteristics too!

[brian]

Crispin,
Above, you mentioned "some lingering hangups from some bad experiences in the world of Charismania." I can totally identify (long story, which I will not tell here). My question for you: how did you get over it? Or how are you trying to get over this? Any ideas, books, therapy programs!?

[Brian Odom]

I agree with the central thrust of the post--evil is to be fought and not explained, and "Why do good things happen to bad people?" is often the wrong question. Here's an attempt, though, to round out part of how we're describing Boyd's ideas.

There is one aspect of evil which Boyd tries to "explain", and that is whether its very existence is an insurmountable contradiction with the premise of a good God. Even if answering this question doesn't help us with the primary tasks of navigating the suffering of friends and fighting evil, I think Boyd would say there is still value in having an answer.

In the post, there's a "classic church answer" (not espoused by Dave, I think): "Because of free will, evil had to be introduced to the world to give us real choice, and so, because our original ancestors chose disobedience, suffering and evil are facts of life in the world."

If I understand Boyd's case, this explanation misses a few key points:

1. To make space for free choice, it was not necessary to introduce evil, per se, but it was necessary to introduce risk. God took a risk in giving people and supernatural beings choice, and he didn't know how it would turn out. To say it a different way, I can believe that God takes risks, but I have a harder time believing that God takes a Machiavellian approach of introducing terrible evil so that he can do something wonderfully good.

2. That classic church answer leaves out the fact that there were other fallen beings around before people came on the scene. Their influence on the physical world is an essential part of the picture, since for example, (1) some conditions which pre-existed humans seem to contain elements of evil in themselves and (2) other pre-existing conditions, regardless of any set of human choices, would still lead to horrible natural disasters today.

Anyway, like the post says, understanding these things doesn't help with everything. But, it does allow us to not get twisted up thinking of God as Machiavelli, and wondering whether he really could be so ruthless.

[Marcia]

A "risk taking" God is something I haven't really thought about. By taking a risk, do you mean that God could fail?

[Krissy]

My 16 year-old daughter and I had a long discussion about this issue a couple days ago, after seeing the movie "Letters to God." (If you feel you must see the movie, wait until it comes out on DVD. Unless, of course, cheesie is your thing.) In the movie, a little boy battles, and ends up dying of, cancer. The wise people of God around him tell the boy that God has chosen him to be a warrior for him. So, in essence, God gave this boy cancer so that his faith (which certainly was admirable) could be a testimony to others.

My daughter knows very well that my take on this kind of thing (heavily influenced by Greg Boyd) is that God doesn't choose to afflict anyone with a terrible illness. "But I have to say, Mom," she said, "It seems like it was more comforting to them (ie, the boy, his mother, and others around them) to think that way." And I admit, that seemed to bring the people in the movie (which is based on a true story),especially the little boy, a fair bit of comfort. As I said to my daughter, however, we shouldn't just pick the explanation that is most comforting to us, if it doesn't line up with what the Bible tells us about who God is.

Many of you are way more advanced as Biblical scholars than I am, so correct me if I have this wrong, but I don't see Jesus EVER encountering a sick person and saying, "Oh yeah, God wants you to be sick because he's doing something important with you through your sickness. So, sorry about the suffering and all, but think of it this way: You're doing it for God! Way to go!" (Yes, there is an incident in John 9 where it may seem that Jesus is saying that a man was born blind in order to bring glory to God, but, without going further into a discussion on this--which would probably quickly go way over my head--I think this is a problem of translation. Notice, too, that Jesus proceeds to promptly heal the man of his blindness.)

I just don't see how we can square the idea that God chooses for certain people to suffer with the picture the Bible gives us of God in the person of Jesus. As far as comfort goes, I actually think it's more comforting to say to someone, "God loves you so much that he would never choose for you to be suffering like this. We are not capable of understanding all the complexities of why these things happen. (Look at God's answer to Job.) But what we do know is that God never leaves you. Jesus is right there with you, and he hates that you are suffering like this. One thing we do know, is that God has a perfect plan to bring good out of this really lousy situation. Another thing we know is that our prayers make a difference. They DO matter." Sure, it seems pretty feeble--OK, maybe very feeble--to say that the enormous amounts of prayer and fasting have made a huge difference if it turns out that the person you're praying for isn't, in fact, healed. And yet... I have enough evidence of effective prayers in my life that I'm still willing to take that much on faith. It makes a difference. (And I'm still praying for a miracle.)

[Brian Odom]

Marcia, off the cuff, I'd say "yes" and "no" but mostly "no". Did God fail with his creation project? Well, sort of yes, in the sense that other players took the story one way, rather than the way that God had hoped for. But, no, in the sense that God did know from the beginning that evil was one possible outcome, and he willingly took that risk. Also, no, in the sense that he will redeem the whole story in the end.

[Brent]

First, I have to say that I am super surprised to find that nearly everyone here knows Boyd's work and thinking there are more than shallow connections between the way Boyd thinks about God and evil and the way we talk about those topics in a stage 4 conversation. Neat.

Second, to Dave's original post, let me quote:

"Now, that said, as I watch my friend suffer, I'm not sure Boyd's answer does any more for me than all the old heady answers. But it does encourage me to stand by my friend and "fight evil" through prayer and faith rather than wasting much time asking why bad things happen to good people, and that does seem like a plus."

I would argue that this is exactly what Boyd's answer is supposed to do, and that is all it is supposed to do. It is not just a plus, it is the whole shebang. Job's friends should have just hung out with him and prayed with him and made him a sandwich and both they and Job would have been the better for it. The proper response to evil is to pray against it, fight against it, and come alongside those experiencing it most directly.

[Brent]

A book to check out is John Sander's 'The God Who Risks.' Great book, somewhat 'heady', but not too academic.

Could God fail? In principle 'yes' because the future is unknown (even by God). But God is God. He is perfectly faithful, absolutely powerful, knows all that can be known, and really really patient. Seems like a recipe for success to me.

personally I really like this view of things since it means I have to put my faith in God's faithfulness (which I can experience and witness) and not in some detailed plan that exists only in God's head (which I can't see).

[Crispin Schroeder]

Brian,
Honestly I am not sure how I got out of all of it and am still in church because I have many friends who went through the same things and have given up on both God and Church. I guess I went through a period of massive deconstructing of church and what I believed but somehow it seemed like I managed to have a few level-headed Christians in my life when I needed them who kind of walked me through some of the tough hangups with me. I think my main healing has come in the context of relationships. Henri Nouwen wrote in one of his books, "Hospitality is not to change another person but to offer space in which change can take place." That kind of sums up my journey - I have been fortunate enough to encounter some great Christ-followers who, even when seeing all of my baggage, didn't try to change me but let me process things and encounter God at my own pace. This did include a lot of books but more so relationships. Now that I am planting a church it seems like we have a good bit of people coming in with a similar experience so I am really trying to keep the same kind of hospitable vibe going so that they may experience what I did. I don't know if this is much of an answer, but I guess I've never really tried to answer this question.

[Vinceation]

After my mom died of cancer, it was only direct experiences of God (my first ever) that truly helped pull me out of the pit I was in. The only way I can really describe those experiences is that they were good and God felt like everything I needed in those moments. But, beyond that, I'm not sure what else I can say. Since then, I've often tried to fill out a bit more what exactly was happening or HOW God was consoling me, but I think those descriptions have changed every year based on what book I'm reading at the time. Really, all that can be said is that the bad I was dealing with was redeemed to be an avenue to meet with God. I don't recall any profound thoughts or approaches (Boyd's or otherwise) helping me in my times of most heightened distress, though many such thoughts and approaches have been helpful as I reflect back.

As I think about this stuff in a more removed sense (dealings with evil that affect others more than they affect me), I've definitely been helped sometimes by Boyd's suggestion to fight evil (especially after the Haiti earthquake), but I've also been helped by what Rohr or a'Kempis might suggest: embracing suffering and letting it shape us to be more like Jesus, which in a way seems a little opposite to Boyd though I don't think they're in competition. Anyway, both seem like ways bad situations can be redeemed to become avenues to meet with God, but neither seem like the whole story.

[Crispin Schroeder]

Well-said Brent!

[Dave Schmelzer]

From James Lee Carr, commenting on this post on Facebook:

In February, my younger brother, Kevin, was given less than a month to live. He's a born-again Roman Catholic with a very supportive family. We've been praying for him consistently. Last week, his doctors told him there's been 'dramatic improvement', attributing it to cutting-edge chemo and extending his life expectancy by two years. Kevin has been very receptive of Vineyard/IHOP style ministry from my wife Janet and I. But the one question he wants answered is the one for which I am clueless - why am I in such pain ?

[brian]

Thanks for this, Crispin.

[Tim Truesdale]

Dave, sorry to get in late on the original post, but wow does it resonate for me! I can say that there are people all around me who currently seem to be the targets of some pretty evil things.

Recently, I have had 2 somewhat new reactions:

1) First, I have been reminded again of that quote by Charles Spurgeon, which says "Being left alone by Satan is not a sign of being blessed". In my worldview, I can substitute "evil" for "Satan" pretty interchangeably.

To me, that means that the absence of evil "attacks" is not a sign of "living right", having greater favor by God, and in fact may not be a sign of favor in any general kind of way.

2) Next, as I have seen several of my friends struggling with some pretty harsh aspects of life, I have also been recently reminded about the words Moses was given to convey to Pharoaoh, "Let my people go". Which to me are definitely "fighting words" that take me along the path of engaging in what I call spiritual warfare.

Maybe its my disposition, maybe my generation (born in the 60's, grew up in the 80's) to find solace in brooding while seeking causes and meanings.

Just to say that I am definitely seeking to be one who greives with those who greive. But I am also re-examing the benefits of being one who seeks all authority I can recieve to take a "fight fire with fire" approach when I see evil seeking to attach or attack the lives of those who I love.

Thanks for posting!

[DJ Sybear]

Boyd's work is good. So is Ladd's kingdom theology and the idea of the "already/not yet" as especially applied and articulated in the Vineyard movement.

-However-

I don't think a litany of answers, or even an exceptionally good answer, is going to help us feel better about evil and suffering as we're dealing with it. If we're the ones suffering, we want to be freed from it; if others are suffering, we suffer with them and want them to be free. And maybe, if there's no resolution in the interim, we want to feel better about the significance of suffering or about the character of God. We want a resolution to our emotional crisis if not a resolution to the presenting problem.

It might be useful to note here that I'm not of the camp that believes all suffering has significance, past, present or future. Sometimes suffering is horribly meaningless and irrational. Some feelings won't resolve well, or easily: that's what grief is for.

But all our "answers" and "reasons" are just a backdrop to the real human work on the stage, human work to love and grieve and pray and seek professional help and persevere and trust and meditate and practice the presence of God. And all of that work is really irrelevant if God isn't the director and producer and the audience and the lead role.

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows."

[Jai]

God allowed Satan to attack Job with every sort of malady, so does that qualify as an evil attack or God's hand of providence in Job's life? The difficulty for me is identifying what a spiritual attack looks like. Is sickness/disease forms of spiritual attack? What about mental illness? Homosexuality?

[Brent]

In this conversation in particular, Job always comes up. I think it is really important to keep in mind that the book of Job is not meant to be read as history, as a book that can tell us about an event that describes the mechanics of how God and Satan and humans interact. We can't extrapolate theology from it beyond its purpose. Job is a story whose purpose is to teach us about the proper response to tragedy and suffering, and I think we have to be careful about going beyond that.

[Marcia]

Yes, yes...this is helpful to me. Thanks.

[Jai]

I see what you mean Brent,and I agree with your point, but it's out there and it still does raise the question of the origin of suffering. Thanks for the reply!

[Tim]

For me, the problem of evil makes God seem like an out-of-work superhero who no longer gets any accolades, so he has to set up a situation where he can come and save the day so that everyone will praise him. I wish I could stop believing in God, but its so ingrained.