destructive theology

I found this blog through the emergent villiage news letter. On the news letter it brought up the idea of theodicy (why evil occurs while god is good). I was hoping for an answer or at least a respons that could help keep my faith in god when terrable tragedy hits. In these responses to Haiti I have not found any comfort, why should this happen? What is god up to in all of this? Why should we continue believing in an omnipotent god when such disaster occur…so regularly? Please give us some answers.

Thanks for your insightful remarks on the very real impact of bad theology and for the analysis of the world-view behind it.

I would agree that the individual narratives of judgments in both testaments should never be read isolated from the larger interpretative framework of God’s mercy and the redemptive history linked to those judgments.

The way you worded the last sentence in the first paragraph though may lead some to believe that you’re advocating a false dichotomy between a judging God and a merciful God, in other words the idea that we’d be better off without those narratives altogether. I don’t think that was your intent but for the sake of a continuing constructive conversation and development of a better theology than the one described above, maybe it would be better to say “the image of God one may arrive at by an isolated reading of stories like Sodom & Gomorrah …”. Let’s not give the impression that we are eager to follow in the footsteps of Marcion of Sinope!

I believe many people have been struggling to answer these most unanswerable (maybe unanswerable in our realm, from our perspective, in our dimension) questions. I am one of those. I have been struggling since 1988, the earthquake in Armenia.

For many years I have been thinking the same-why should this happen? How, and WHY, did a loving and sovereign God allow this much suffering? And if God is loving, why then such disasters happen? What is He up to? Why should I believe (let alone become like Him) in such a loving God who doesn’t prevent disasters? Who is able to prevent but for some reasons does not or choose not. The kind of God who keeps loving and keeps allowing disasters?
To believe or not to believe in God isn’t a question for me-I KNOW that He is God. My struggle is a bit different. It is the godlikeness.

While trying to answer this question, another question was raised in my mind.

We are struggling thinking-if God is loving then why disasters happen? In other words we can say-if God is loving, then disasters should not happen. So, as a result of our struggle we concluded that IF GOD IS LOVING THEN DISASTERS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. And now I am thinking-is this a right statement? I am trying to answer the following question-WHY disasters should NOT happen? Even if God is loving? Did God promise that humanity is going to live without disasters? Did God promise a life without disaster?

If I answer the question why disasters should NOT happen maybe I will find the answer of the question Why disasters happen, and even worse, happen so regularly?

I will greatly appreciate if somebody answers my questions.

Thank you

Hi Hasmik and Mike,

I’m trying to elicit answers from folks who are more theologically trained than I am, but you guys have asked the question so well and with such earnestness that I wanted to at least throw in my two cents so you know someone took your question seriously.

I don’t think I could live with the existence of suffering on the scale of Haiti if I didn’t believe that there is a force standing in direct opposition to the goodness of God (I was raised to call this force Satan, but I usually refer to it simply as Evil or That Which Opposes God). I know lots of people don’t believe in this anymore, but I do. It doesn’t answer the question of why a sovereign and loving God would allow this evil and the resultant suffering, but it offers a better explanation for the source of it (at least for me) to believe that there are spiritual forces that wish humanity harm.

I also believe that the intersection between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will is a mysterious thing. I’ve come to focus much more on man’s role in tragedies such as this. Would the earthquake in Haiti have been as devastating if the buildings in Port-Au-Prince were more structurally sound? If Haiti wasn’t as desperately poor after centuries of structural violence and oppression by despots? It still inspires a feeling of helplessness to look at it this way, but at least it shifts some of the blame onto humans, which makes a little more sense to me since I know that humans do horrible things to one another.

So I guess you could say my overall approach is not to blame God for these things, but to put the onus elsewhere. I’m fully aware that this doesn’t work in situations where there really is no one to blame. I also don’t understand why God gives His sovereignty over and lets evil have reign. I mean, I’ve been offered theological explanations for this (we can only understand God’s good and mercy when presented with evil, for example) but none of these explanations has really helped me all that much.

If I had to face the death of my own child, or walk through the streets of Port-au-Prince seeing the devastation, I imagine no explanation would suffice… and I would only be able to fall back on my faith and beg God to intervene to save my faith and relieve the suffering… because it would be so much worse if I didn’t even have this faith that God hears.

I guess that’s a weak answer, but it’s the one I have. I look forward to hearing other people’s thoughts on this.

Great thoughts and questions and ponderings! As I read through the comments my own mind began processing how I explain this to fellow believers and non-believers. Some of my framework finds footing in Jesus’ words that “in this world you will have trouble” and again when He spoke about “earthquakes and famines” and “wars and rumors of wars.” He seems to be teaching that these unfortunate disasters are simply a result of the world we live in – whether we call it fallen or simply imperfect.

A thought that then ran across my mind was about the tremendous risks God has taken by simply creating an earth and humanity: the risk of creating free will, the risk of creating death and decay, the risk of perhaps even allowing for destruction and catastrophe in the natural world. From the perspective of His love, can we believe that there are unfortunate risks to creating a place for life to exist and thrive? Perhaps in order for this earth to have been created within the realm of time and space as we know it, God was willing to allow for tectonic plates to exist, which in turn allows for such catastrophic destruction as earthquakes. Scientifically, it seems that the earth could not exist without tectonic plates, and that creation itself may fully rely on those plates not only for initial creation, but for continual creation as well.

I am still sorting through these thoughts even as I share. Yet, I have come to a somewhat comfortable acceptance of a God who, in tremendous love for all His creation, has had to allow certain effects that seem destructive and unfortunate to us. It may also be that from God’s perspective these are not as destructive as much as they are creative. Not sure where to go with that yet, but just trying to wrap my worm-like mind around the intentions and purposes of my Sovereign God.

Thanks for this entry and the thoughtful analysis. I think you are dead on when you look at the implications of Robertson’s theology. It reminds me a great deal of the reasoning of Job’s counselors as they tried to explain his suffering. Of course, when God finally speaks, their theology is flatly rejected.

As for the question of suffering… that’s a hard one. It is hard to bear something like this without an explanation, but I really think we simply don’t know. I trust that God is good, but I’ve always tried to resist answering the unanswerable. To do that seems to me like raising human understanding to the level of divine wisdom. I tend to think of that as a kind of self-worship.

One thing that struck me about this was the fact that this earthquake was similar in strength to the one that hit the bay area in a few years ago. Because Americans have a first-rate infrastructure the death toll was in the tens. Haiti’s death toll was many orders of magnitude higher because of the poverty there. Most people died when cheaply constructed buildings collapsed and when substandard infrastructure did not allow aid to arrive in a timely manner.

It seems to me that we Americans are like the rich man in Jesus’ parable. Poor Lazarus has been sitting at our doorstep all these years and we have ignored his suffering. Before we question God’s goodness, I want to question how faithful we have been.

i remember struggling with traditional theodicies in seminary. iu struggled because they did not seem nourishing or to legitimate the reality of suffering at all. from the reformed tradition, the line is that suffering occurs as a kind of pedagogical framework where we learn to find the good through it. that is, without suffering we would not understand the goodness of god in contrast to it and so, we learn to be more faithful. the problem, as many a philosopher will argue, is the evidence of suffering particularly on large scale. does the holocaust help us learn about the good, or does it teach us more about the sheer lack of god in these situations?

simone weil is the only theologian who has given me an answer i can deal with. to simplify her argument 1) at the creation god chose to limit god’s own omnipotence in order to give humanity god’s image and free will to love the good. 2) nature in itself which includes natural disasters is indifferent to the human condition. that is, there are physical laws that have been set in place in the structure of the universe that persist and god who deemed the creation good does not suspend those laws to protect a few. 3) that we question why suffering happens to “us” only confronts us with out own egoism – ex. because this suffering happened to “me” and god did not intervene, god must not be good… 4) the way out of the sort of self-reflexive game we play is to de-center our own ego to see the larger framework of nature and history for which each of us plays a very small part. this is the witness of jesus christ who died because a sinful humanity killed him. it was only after he emptied himself of his own human desires and egotism that resurrection was possible.

weil calls the creation the first crucifixion where god limited god’s self in order for humanity to take on his image. the second crucifixion in christ redeems the misuse of human freedom. between the good and the absolute absence of it is where we have our existence with god suspending the whole thing.

the practical way i interpret this is to say that the only reason why suffering exists in a situation like haiti is because people chose to settle where an earthquake happened to occur. it’s not their fault, but nor is it god’s fault for not suspending the laws of nature in that moment. if all the laws of nature were suspended to keep all human beings from suffering, it would be a different universe than the one created. so the question is why do we exist in this creation at all? why don’t we live a different life than the one we have? but this goes well past the smaller question of “why does suffering exist?”

Drew, you’ve brought a timely reminder for the need to constantly examine our theological presuppositions. Our differences in how we read the Bible inevitably lead to differences in how we understand God and his action (or inaction) in the world. Just recognizing these various approaches can lead to actual understanding instead of simple name calling. IMO, theological humility – what I call “look in the mirror” when I blog about your post – is crucial to correcting misconceptions about God.

Thanks!

“Let’s not give the impression that we are eager to follow in the footsteps of Marcion of Sinope!”

You’d rather follow the OT god that Jesus came to defeat and commit genocide then, huh? If you don’t agree with Marcion, you really can’t follow Jesus. Defending the OT genocides is anti-christ.

Drew and all,

This is a very important topic. I think it’s time for Christianity to grow beyond this befuddlement with suffering. The existence of suffering demolishes the proposition that God is both loving and omnipotent. God is neither, not in the sense that this proposition is normally taken. Usually it is taken to mean that God is the ultimate, limitlessly powerful being among other beings who can control everything and do anything if he (and this God has been the patriarchal “he”) so chooses and that he doles out his love in bits and pieces by deliberation. This is the God of supernatural theism. Such a God must limit his power to allow us freedom. The existence of suffering exposes the very brittle clay feet of the idea that this God is entirely loving.

From a panentheistic perspective, God is not a being but the source and ground of being who encompasses and exceeds all beings. This God is Love (the glue of being) and loves as the continuous and quite impartial act of creation. This God’s power is not separate from all the various forms of power with which divine Love has endowed us and the whole created order. All power comes from this God, but this God is not capriciously, magically omnipotent over and against creation. Such omnipotence is our wish that we have projected onto the God we have tended to create (imagine) in our own image. God’s actual power is the power of being and life (logos of John 1), and that power is expressed through us and all of creation, not over us. Suffering happens when different currents of this life energy (the totality of different beings through whom the divine power is expressed) collide within the created order. This is the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). The dualisms of life and death, pain and pleasure are inseparable within the created order and give impetus toward more complexity, sentience, intelligence, and compassion (the Kingdom of God on earth as telos; Tielard de Chardin’s omega point). This is why we can affirm with Paul that all things work together for good.

If the supernatural-theistic view is correct, then the God who could choose to prevent the earthquake in Haiti is a monster, issues of freewill not withstanding. If the panentheistic view is more accurate, then we need to be busy helping those who suffer, because much of God’s power to actively love them within creation resides in us. (The prayer of St. Francis comes to mind.)

Grace & peace!

Drew,
This is wonderful. I know there are wonderful perspectives being shared on this thread and deep questions being wrestled with and I am not sure I can add anything of that nature to the conversation. That said, the part I really appreciate most is your last paragraph and the important reminder to DO something. When I first re-entered the ministry in 2006 I confused critical thinking with just being critical. I spent so much time rallying against thoughts like the ones expressed by Robertson, Piper, and others in your article that all I was doing was tearing down…but I neglected to express the importance of being FOR something and embracing something that better identifies us with Jesus. I was venting anger from a podium and I am not sure that approach was constructive. Sure, Jesus told the Pharisees what for, but Jesus also surrounded himself with people and acted in love and compassion and grace and healing and so much more.

Anyway, based on my own foibles as I struggle through the journey of life, I very much appreciate the balance in the closing of this article. Thank you.

Andrew,
Thank you for presenting a clear biblical view on the subject. We all need to be reminded that we live in a sin cursed world. As the author of Ecclesiates correctly ascertains, wickedness as well as blessing comes upon both the good and the evil; therefore he declares everything is vain. It is a lesson that all need to learn and adhere to; that is the entire point of Ecclesiaties: Life without God is meaningless.

@rey:

You wrote, “You’d rather follow the OT god that Jesus came to defeat and commit genocide then, huh? If you don’t agree with Marcion, you really can’t follow Jesus. Defending the OT genocides is anti-christ.”

Do I want to defend genocide in the OT or even try to pretend to understand why God would initiate something that seems to be in direct contradiction to His goodness, love and grace? No. But rather than eliminating everything from the canon of biblical revelation that doesn’t agree with my subjective definition and understanding of love, goodness etc. (which forced Marcion not only to eliminate the entire OT but also large parts of the New Testament as well!), I would want to try to understand those difficult parts of Scripture in the context of the larger picture and from Jesus’ own interpretation of the OT.

And considering the latter, the choice to either defeat or follow the “OT god” was never an option for Jesus – unless again you choose to interpret those parts of the NT which emphasize the continuity of God throughout both testaments (and Jesus’ intent to fulfill rather than abolish) as a distortion of the “true” historical Jesus. The question then remains if that “reconstructed” / self-constructed Jesus is indeed a recovery of something that was lost or an idolatrous distortion of the original.

I don’t want to question in any way your desire and commitment to follow Jesus. I just refuse to believe that I have to pick and choose from the Bible according to my own preferences and the limits of my present understanding. Does that make sense?

Thanks to all!
Was great and edifying for me to read all your responses. They confirmed some of my thoughts, covered some of my questions, and raised some others

God is the Creator, the Creator of all from nothing. The Universe, stars, galaxies, planets, the Earth and the Heaven, and everything in between, including humans, are the work of His hands. And most likely the creation of humanity was the masterpiece of His art. A bit difficult for me to identify this as masterpiece, but it looks like a masterpiece.

Dave put it beautifully saying that God took a tremendous risk while creating the Earth and humanity in this Universe, with this natural order, with rigid ‘cause and effect’ rules. And why would God act against the natural order set up by Him for particular and definite purposes? Why would He? His love wouldn’t justify the violation of the created order. In this case, I guess, he would really become a monster or a manipulator.

I believe the most risky thing in this Creation was to be misunderstood by those created by His own hands.

When I was small I used to believe that wanting God is a safe business, that God is safe, that God is secure, because God is love. It took some stressful years to discover that God isn’t safe at all, although I still think that God is love. Love in His godly ways, where His thoughts exceed my own, and where his ways differs from my own.

I believe to Create is to love, to risk, to give, to separate. The business of risking and giving belongs only to a loving heart. The business of risking for the sake of a new life belongs only to a loving heart.
True, for the sake of a life yet to become what he intended to be from the very beginning… a life in the process of becoming…But still a new life. And this life is a result of a loving heart.

What is Somber for me is refreshing for God
What sets me to flight, God withstands,
What is fatal for me is nothing before His almighty essence. This reminds me Job’s story.

In order to teach how to embrace His greatness, God tore, He ripped my heart from within. In order to create/recreate His image in me, He destroyed everything within me, he robbed me from everything. In order to teach security and safety, he put me into the fire, he smashed my own security. In order to give he took everything from me and emptied me. And I guess He meant this when He said that He LOVES me!

God’s love is the most real for me, and His presence is the most desirable for me…and yet, oftentimes, I feel I am scared of His love. To respond to God’s love I guess is the most dangerous business in this life, but not to do so, I believe, is more dangerous.

The suffering of God’s incarnation was before and beyond (of course including) the crucifixion. The Infinite God entered into the human flesh in order to empower us to go through the fire and yet not to be burnt in order to become what He intended from the very beginning…toward the true and creative identity of each of us.

As I am moving toward my new ministry to serving the nations may God give me wisdom and heart to know how to do this…how to love and be loving.

I just wanted to share these thoughts with you while learning so much from each of you.

Hasmik, this is a simply beautiful post. Thank you.

I agree with Marcion. The Catholics added the OT argumentation (all out of context twisting) to Paul’s epistles, and the supposed prophecy fulfillments to the gospels. Read the OT verses that are utilized in Matthew’s first two chapters. Not a one of them can be shown to be about Jesus after you read them in context: Read Isaiah 7, Micah 5, Jeremiah 31, Hosea 11:1, and try to find “He shall be called a Nazarene” which isn’t even in the OT. Face it, the positive connection between Jesus and the OT was manufactured by the 2nd century ‘Catholics’ or proto-orthodox. Marcionism was the ORIGINAL form of the religion, and their canon of one gospel and ten epistles of Paul (whom they probably called Marcion) was the original Christian canon.

You’re entitled to your opinion, rey. I’m just wondering what you think about the antisemitic tendencies in Marcionism and whether you believe that the earliest Christian church in Jerusalem (according to the book of Acts) with all its continuing Jewish practices was either apostate or fabricated as well.

I guess I don’t have to tell you that Paul meant the OT when he referred to Scripture as being inspired and useful in its totality (2 Timothy 3:16).

“I’m just wondering what you think about the antisemitic tendencies in Marcionism”

There aren’t any. Marcionism rejects the OT god for his immorality and cruelty, especially his genocidal ways. They wouldn’t go kill the Jews seeing they rejected the OT god for that very sort of attitude. The OT god is the prime example of what not to be, so why would they act just like him?

In fact, Marcionism is quite Jewish actually. It is clear that Marcion must have been a Jew. He follows the Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament prophecies which is why he rejects the notion that Jesus is the Old Testament’s Messiah. For example, he says Isaiah 7 is about Mahershalalhashbaz not Jesus. Micah 5 is about Zorobabel. On this, therefore, Marcionism would have a great deal of ground for ecumenism. Marcionism does not say to the Jews (as ‘orthodox’ Christianity does) “You’re an idiot who doesn’t understand your own Scriptures!”

So, Marcion accepts that the Jewish interpretation of the OT is right. And he accepts that the OT is the true revelation of A god, but it is a lower god than the Heavenly Father and Jesus Chrestos both morally and in power.

Marcionism even lets the Jews off the hook for killing Christ, because in Marcionism it is the OT god himself who has Jesus crucified. This actually is still kinda in our canon in John where Jesus says to Pilate (John 19:11) “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above (i.e. from the OT god, the god of this world as Paul terms him, who John calls ‘ruler of this world’ three times in this gospel). Therefore the one (the OT god) who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

The sin of killing Jesus is branded on the OT god, not Pilate or the Jews.

“I guess I don’t have to tell you that Paul meant the OT when he referred to Scripture as being inspired and useful in its totality (2 Timothy 3:16).”

The Marcionite canon lacked 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus. Not to mention that all the OT argumentation we now find in Paul’s epistles (which is all out of context twisting) was not in their version. Their version was the original. The Catholics corrupted it with misinterpretations of the OT to manufacture a positive connection between Jesus and the OT.

“and whether you believe that the earliest Christian church in Jerusalem (according to the book of Acts) with all its continuing Jewish practices was either apostate or fabricated as well.”

There is no evidence that the book of Acts is historical. In fact, even the earliest Catholic writers (like Justin Martyr) are ignorant of this book. Justin was an anti-Marcionite polemicist. Yet he never quotes or refers to Acts in any of his works. He speaks of the 12 apostles going forth and spreading the gospel through all the world. He totally leaves off and never mentions Paul.

Besides, in the gospels Peter and the rest are always breaking the traditions of the elders: picking corn on the sabbath, eating without washing hands, etc. But in Acts all of the sudden Peter is a hasidic Jew who follows the Talmud itself! He doesn’t want to go preach to Cornelius at first because “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation;” (Acts 10:28)

No, I don’t know that Peter! Where is that in the OT? Oh, its not. That’s from the Talmud. Hmmmmm….Since when did this heretical fishermen from timbucktoo who used to eat with unwashed hands and pick corn on the sabbath become a great Talmud scholar and observer? Since the Catholics wrote a false book to harmonize Peter and Paul and make the apostles look like a bunch of orthodox Jews, even going so far as to make Paul offer animal sacrifices in the temple (AFTER JESUS ALREADY DIED ON THE CROSS TO BOOT)!

rey,

I don’t think we’ll come to the same conclusions when it comes to the historical reliability of those gospels and epistles not included in the Marcionite canon, nor in our evaluation of the Acts of the Apostles (ironically written by the same author of the only gospel that Marcion accepted – purged of all the “A God” type references of course!)

I find it highly problematic to come to a text with all kinds of presuppositions of what fits with your own understanding of such things as love, grace etc. and then eliminate or declare everything “corrupted” that doesn’t fit with this concept. You gotta admit that cults like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses use that very same approach – with different results of course since the main interest is always defending what the respective group believes already and can’t possibly be wrong.

But let’s put all that aside for a moment and let’s look at this from a more personal angle. If you don’t mind answering one last question:

What would change in the way you believe, think, live and relate to others if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the Father of Jesus Christ turned out to be one and the same?

Like I said, Catholic writers prior to 140 know nothing of a book of Acts because it was written in response to the Marcionites. Luke is an edit job of Marcion’s gospel and Acts is a revisionism of Paul’s biography, and the same guy that edited Marcion’s gospel to make Luke also wrote Acts. That invalidates Acts rather than saves it.

And the Mormons are modern and just made up some stuff, as are the JWs. The Marcionites predate your church and all churches around today. A Marcionite can laugh at a Baptist, Lutheran, whatever, as being no different from the JWs and Mormons, since his church came first and it can actually be proven historically. In fact the proof is trivial.

“What would change in the way you believe, think, live and relate to others if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the Father of Jesus Christ turned out to be one and the same?”

I would forget Christianity altogether and live a good moral life as a Deist. I will not serve an inconsistent God who says he is not a respector of persons, then chooses to deal with only one family on earth. Nor with a God who commands genocide right and left and genocide mixed with child rape (see Numbers 31) and then pretends to be a loving God later on. Either there are two gods and Marcionism is true, or every form Christianity is false.

rey,

I think everyone who has looked at the issues at hand wrestles with the same difficulties – whether it is with the question of evil and suffering in general or with particular incendents like the Canaanite genocides and God asking Abraham to kill his own son.

Your solution is simple and is embraced not only by Marcion but all who see a radical discontinuity between the two testaments and between a God of love and a God who frequently displays wrath and vengeance.

I can speak here only for myself, the main reason why I’m more than reluctant to follow this approach is the harmonizing tendency behind it that in the end puts God in a box again and seems to know so confidently what God can and what he cannot do. I don’t have those neat kind of answers that quickly resolve all the tension and create an “acceptable” image of God. I think it is reasonable to expect that there are many things about God that will conflict with our way of thinking and our limited perspective.

Obviously we are not going to resolve this disagreement in our discussion here. But just in case you’re interested in different viewpoints on the same issue, you may want to take a look at Christopher Wright’s “The God I Don’t Understand” and C. S. Cowles, et. al, “Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide”.

Actually I recently purchased “Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide”. I was actually disappointed that Cowles’ radical discontinuity wasn’t radical enough.

“I can speak here only for myself, the main reason why I’m more than reluctant to follow this approach is the harmonizing tendency behind it that in the end puts God in a box”

God is in a box. Its called his character. Its called being Just. A god that is not in a box is an arbitrary tyrant such as Calvinism believes in and is a hazard to all living things. Just as you are a hazard to yourself and others when you are not in a box. The point of religion is to put us in a box so we don’t hurt ourselves and others. “Thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not commit adultery”—these puts us in a ‘box.’ God also puts himself in a box called holiness. Any view that removes the box, seeks to transform God into Satan, for Satan is the lawless one and the box is law.

You seem pretty confident in knowing then what fits in that box and what doesn’t. I would assume you’re not exactly impressed with postmodern thought and theology, are you?

“I would assume you’re not exactly impressed with postmodern thought and theology, are you?”

What is that, the “how do I know I really exist” crap?

No, not exactly – although the radical scepticism behind that particular question can be traced back in the Western Hemisphere to at least as far back as the 17th century when Decartes’ conclusion of radically questioning all that appears to be certain was: “cogito ergo sum” – “I think therefore I am!”. The process itself of thinking, doubting, analyzing was the only thing in his mind that could not be doubted.

No, postmodernism (in its application for theology) questions primarily the illusion of modernity that we can know the objective and absolute in an absolute and final way. It takes into account that everything we see and “understand” is always seen through the lense of our subjective experience, formation, way of thinking and categorizing etc. It’s our personal “box” of perception, preconceived notions that in the end determines what we think is possible, contradictory etc.

It’s relevant for our discussion insofar as what may look impossible to reconcile in your mind (or Marcion’s mind) may be just your perception of the matter. Whether it’s truly impossible to reconcile in ESSENCE is impossible for us to say.

Just to give a concrete example: it’s easy to read the OT exclusively through the lense of a particular understanding of how law and grace are mutually exclusive when it comes to salvation. But does this mean law and living by grace are always in conflict? By including other narratives and points of view in Scripture itself (just assuming for a moment that Marcion may have been wrong in his view of the Biblical canon) a different picture, much more nuanced, evolves.

I’ll post a link to an article that hopefully can help explain what I mean by a wider frame of reference and openness to change of our current ideas and conceptions:

http://www.signsofthetimes.com.au/archives/2009/may/religionmatters.shtm

“Just to give a concrete example: it’s easy to read the OT exclusively through the lense of a particular understanding of how law and grace are mutually exclusive when it comes to salvation. But does this mean law and living by grace are always in conflict?”

Harnack being a Lutheran and looking for an early Martin Luther figure in ever shadow of church history thought that Marcion had read Paul’s letters and been convicted that justification is by faith alone and became a sort of Martin Luther figure of the 2nd century, raging against the legalistic Roman church. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, as Paul’s faith onlyism lies in his twisting of the OT (the string of out of context Psalm and proverb references in Romans 3, the twisting of the story of Abraham in Romans 4, and of course Romans 9). The very material where Paul is faith onlyist is the material that Marcion either didn’t have (or if you buy the Catholic story, that Marcion cut out).

Like, Marcion, therefore, my concern is not with this proto-orthodox and Lutheran distinction of law vs grace nor of faith vs works. It is with morality.

When I look at the Law I begin with the story of Adam and Eve. I ask “Why would God not want man to know the difference between good and evil? Why forbid the fruit which gives this knowledge?”

And I ask “What would a god do who doesn’t want man to know the difference between good and evil, if man were to come to know that difference?”

The answer is to take away that knowledge. This is what the Law does by saying “thou shalt not covet” then “covet the Caananites’ land,” “thou shalt not steal” then “steal the Caananites’ land”, and “thou shalt not kill” then “kill the Caananites.”

When the Law says in Numbers 31 to kill every Midianite yet save the young virgin girls “for yourselves” it undermines not only “thou shalt not kill” but “thou shalt not commit adultery.” Here every Israelite male (married ones too) are commanded to keep young virgin girls “for themselves” as spoils of war. It commands adultery, and paedofilia. How can such a Law been seen as anything but an attempt to steal back the knowledge of good and evil that Adam stold in eating the ‘apple’?

The I see that although the Law says that homosexuality is an abomination it weakens this by also saying that “shellfish will be an abomination to you.” The ceremonial is placed on the same plain as the moral to confuse our moral sense!

So, I see the Law not as the Catholic editor of Paul in Romans 7 “without the Law I would not know what sin is” but rather I see that without the Law we would know all the more what sin is. The Law confuses our morality by its inconsistency and this is its purpose. The very same God that didn’t want us to the eat the fruit that gives the knowledge of good and evil is now taking that knowledge back by a wicked Law that is no good.

This is objective fact thay anyone who considers it may see. Postmodernism be damned. Morality is absolute. And it is on morality that I place my firm footing, not on abstract concepts of an animosity between law and grace. You are right that law and grace are not always in opposition. In fact, grace cannot exist without law. If a judge let every criminal go free that would not be grace (although the ignorant would assert such) for it is not gracious to help the wicked against he innocent which is what letting all criminals go free is.

Marcionism by abolishing the inconsistent Law of the Old Testament has set up a consistent moral law, not abolished all law altogether as the Luthrans and such-like have done.

Marcionism agrees with the fruit and what knowledge it gave to Adam which he has passed on to all of us. The thing is, the god who forbade the fruit wants to make us not know the difference between good and evil because then we would know that he is evil. So he must confuse us by making us think that genocide is just fine when he’s involved in it, and so on. By putting a superstition on us whereby we think we must defend his immoral actions he takes away what we gained from the fruit. Marcionism simply points out his trickery and rejects it. It does not reject morality as the Lutherans. It rejects the inconsistent and immoral law to establish one that is truly moral, even as Jesus is found to do in the sermon on the mount “you have heard it said love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say love your enemies also.” Is this overturning of the immoral and inconsistent Old Testament Law by Jesus not a Marcionite statement???

rey,

We may not agree on our presuppositions and our reading of the mentioned texts but I think there is lots of common ground in the conclusions.

I think we both could say: from our present understanding of who God really is through His revelation in Christ, things like murder, rape, abuse, torture, genocide are immoral and wrong, and even if a “god” asked us to commit any of these crimes we would not comply.

I’m still wondering what you think about God’s justice? Would it in your understanding ever be wrong and immoral for God to hurt a human being or to take a life?

It seems this may have turned into a discussion just between Rey and Josh – my post is not a response to that discussion, but if there are any others still reading this dialogue, this is just a general response to the earlier discussion of the problem of evil.

I enjoyed reading this article and the subsequent discussions on the problem of evil. It is apparent from the abundance of dialogue here that this is a topic to be discussed further. I believe that it is one of the biggest issues that weaken peoples’ faith and cause serious doubt and eventual departure from faith in a good God worth believing in. Allow me here to add some of my personal ponderings on this issue as I have wrestled with it over the years.

When I was completing a graduate degree at Biola University I was amidst a time of
confusion about unanswered prayers and this seeming pain and disappointment that had entered my life. It was during this time that I had lunch with one of my classmates who told me his story and gave me his insights on the problem of evil in this world. For the following ideas I must give credit to my friend, Steve, who as you will see, had good reason to speak into my life about the issue of evil, pain and suffering. Steve had been a follower of Christ for years and was a healthy, athletic, attractive man. However, a few years before I met Steve he was in a serious accident in which He was paralyzed from the waste down and restricted to a wheel chair. From what I understood, he had some serious spinal problems which continued to cause him considerable pain throughout his daily life. He explained to me that there was a period of time after the accident where he rejected God because of the severe pain in his life. He wrestled with the issue of how a good God could allow this kind of tragedy in his life. Many of his friends gave him the explanation that his accident was karma coming back to repay him for bad things he had done in his life. He pondered this issue of karma and made, what I think is, a profound conclusion. He related the idea of karma to God – if God were like the idea of karma then he would punish and strike down all those who had been sinful and done evil in their lives, and likewise he would pour out blessings on all those who were righteous, good, believed and followed Him. Many times we expect, even want God to act in accordance with the idea of karma and this is why we believe that the evil things should not happen to us, or seemingly innocent people, but instead blessings should rain down. The problem my friend identified with this “Karma God” analogy is that if God were to smite everyone who did evil and did not follow God then it would be as if God were “twisting our arm” into following him. We would be controlled, in a way forced to believe and follow God; if we didn’t, we would be punished and encounter evil in our lives. Steve explained that he would not want to follow a God who controlled us in this way or “twisted our arms into believing in him” in order to avoid suffering and enjoy a blessed life.

For this reason God allows the rain to fall on the good and the evil (See Psalm 72 and Mathew 5:45). He allowed freedom of choice in this world so that we could be free to believe or not believe, free to follow him, free to love him – not for fear of being punished or in order to receive blessings, but for genuine belief and commitment. I believe the evil we see in this world is because God endowed us with autonomy for the sake of our freedom. This freedom and our subsequent choices brings detrimental, painful circumstances into the world and daily life. I believe that this world is not the perfection that God intended it to be when he created the earth with Adam and Eve. He desired a world where we could enjoy the earth without strife, pain and suffering. He loved us and he desired for us to be free therefore he gave us the option to allow evil to enter the world. Now we live in a world with freedom, but consequently, a world with evil, pain and suffering. I believe God’s heart breaks with every instance of suffering in our lives, every instance of evil committed against us, or every natural disaster like the earthquake in Haiti. He did not intend the world to include this evil and suffering, but he allowed it for the sake of our freedom.

With that in mind, and to conclude these ponderings, I believe that frequently our wrestling and agony with the problem of evil and suffering is because of our myopic nature, our shortsightedness and lack of vision for the coming Kingdom of God. We are finite creatures and often view this world as all that there is. However, scripture tells us differently. Scripture says that this life is but a fraction of the eternal Kingdom of God. We understand from scripture that the Kingdom of God is here now in part but not in full; it is now, but not yet. The aspect of the Kingdom of God that is here and now resides in the followers of Christ who are God’s active voice and body, representing Christ on earth. It is the calling of followers of Christ to actively bring the peace, justice and restoration of the Kingdom of God. It is the job of Christ followers to actively alleviate suffering, evil and pain in everyway possible as the active and living body of Christ. However, in our failure to act, we circuitously add to the evil and suffering in the world which God would desire to be lessened. Furthermore, there is still an aspect of the Kingdom of God that is not yet. This is the peace, justice and restoration God promises to bring with a new heaven and new earth. We must remember that this life is not the end; not even close to the majority of time we may experience compared with eternity. We must keep eternity and the kingdom of God in view when we encounter suffering, especially on a large scale such as Haiti. God promises that in his kingdom he will wipe every tear and there will be no more pain, suffering or mourning. In Psalm 72 Solomon looks to eternity and the kingdom of God to answer his grappling and wrestling with the suffering in his life. We must do the same. We must widen our vision to see this world as a glimpse in comparison to eternity, in the kingdom of God, where the wrongs of this earth will be made right and we will no longer experience death and mourning. We may not understand how God will bring this peace, justice and restoration, but we trust and hope that in his infinite grace and mercy he will bring justice and restoration to the evil and suffering that we experience here on earth. This life is but a glimpse and we have eternity to hope for.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth…And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God is himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
Revelation 21:1, 3-4

“I’m still wondering what you think about God’s justice? Would it in your understanding ever be wrong and immoral for God to hurt a human being or to take a life?”

Since the Catholic heresy hunters clearly didn’t accurately report Marcion’s view on this subjects I’ve done a lot of thinking on it from the Marcionite perspective and come to this answer:

2nd Corinthians 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”

The Good God bought us from the kosmokrator so that he could render a just judgement. The kosmokrator would have simply send everyone (except for his favorites like Abraham and David…maybe) to hell for all eternity because he is infinitely offended at everything. But the Good God will punish only proportionally to the crime.

“But the Good God will punish only proportionally to the crime.”

I’m curious – what do you think would such a “proportional punishment” look like? Are you thinking of somthing akin to the Roman Catholic concept of purgatory?

More than likely, yes. Whereas Protestants tend to think that the Catholics just made purgatory up out of thin air, I see a strong likelihood that it is a leftover concept from Marcionism that died out for two centuries within ‘orthodoxy’ and then came back.

Matthew 5:26 “Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.”

Matthew 18:34-35 “And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”

Protestantism pre-supposes that every sin infinitely offends God. Therefore, no matter how big or small our “sin debt” is, it is infinite (according to Protestantism) and therefore can never be paid no matter how long we are punished. But both these passages speak of being able to pay it and of getting out. Something is fishy.

Some suppose that the Marcionites are the ones who baptized for the dead (it is Chrysostom’s interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29 I have read). This would imply the ability to get out of whatever place of punishment the dead were in, hence a type of purgatory. Perhaps not that the Good God sends them there, but that the Demiurge who would burn everyone for eternity without distinction anyway does, and the Good Father merely waits to release them until he believes they have paid for what they have done.

But the obvious question will be why baptize for the dead if punishment is proportional and they will get out of hell anyway once they’ve paid the last farthing?

Perhaps because the unbaptized are allowed to pass into total oblivion after paying the last farthing and only the baptized get to go to heaven?

Mat 10:28 “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Interesting to see you quote Matthew’s gospel a lot (which is not in the Marcionite Canon), but we don’t need to get into this again …

According to your belief – do people who go to this purgatory-like place and afterwards to heaven undergo any significant transformation other than the fact that they are justly punished? In other words: what would be the point of someone being in the presence of God who’s simply been punished but not changed?

My other question is concerning the “Demiurge”:

How can he have that kind of authority if – according to one of your earlier comments – he was defeated by Christ?

I would have to think they would be changed.

As to the Demiurge having authority. It is apparent that the Demiurge is left in charge of the world today (just as any interpretation of ‘orthodoxy’ that would be honest with reality as we experience it would have to toss out the first few verses of Romans 13 as an uninspired myth and admit that the devil is left in charge of the world).

Just as the defeat of death is not complete in ‘orthodoxy’ until the end of time, neither is the defeat of the Demiurge complete until the great conflagration of the world in which (it seems that in Marcionism) the Demiurge burns up with the world in some suicidal fireball as a result of his own inconsistency. (I’m still trying to figure out how the references to this work exactly. Reconstructing an ancient religion isn’t always so easy.)

” ... the Demiurge burns up with the world in some suicidal fireball as a result of his own inconsistency.”

I guess this “inconsistency” is a reference to all the OT descriptions of God as compassionate, full of grace and mercy, having no delight in the death of the wicked, and giving His people a law which already in those days pointed out that loving God and our neighbor was central to His will (as opposed to the mentioned atrocities).

Once again, I’m not convinced that God (and in my mind it makes more sense that there is only one) has ever been inconsistent. You alluded yourself to the fact that there are certain things God cannot do – namely anything that would be inconsistent with His character.

I would suggest 2 reasons why it’s hard to believe that there could be 2 gods operating behind the scenes who would both truly deserve the title “God” and at the same time be opposed to each other in this dualistic battle:

Either they are both eternal and therefore immortal (which would eliminate your burning-up scenario for the Demiurge), or one is eternal and the other created which would beg the question how the Demiurge as a created being (by the Heavenly Father) could have been evil from the get-go / or how in the only other option that seems left, the Demiurge as the original God could have created a loving god who actually will survive him in the end.

Well, maybe you have an entirely different idea in mind (like: a third God created both but is content to stand at the sidelines now, or the Demiurge was immortal and now for some reason isn’t). I’d really be interested how you are able to resolve this with the same logic you have utilized so far.

P.S.: You said,

“I’m still trying to figure out how the references to this work exactly.”

I have to admit the same difficulty regarding the OT references you find impossible to reconcile with the God and Father Jesus preaches and represents in his humanity.

Some things I’m willing to accept by faith even though they seem hard or impossible to defend on purely rational grounds.

We are created a little lower than the angels thus have the intelligence in the absence of the evil that men do to construct safe structures in safer areas . But because too often the weak are opressed by the strong and cannot find their place in the sun . The death and destruction we see is not God’d punishment but a consequence of living on a very live planet with tectonic plates, hurricane winds, fire and floods all of which is well known. We however insist on building on seashores, next to rivers which flood and in eartquake zones. “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”

If you want to accept by faith that God is a genocidal maniac or used to be, that’s your own business so long as you don’t imitate your god. But as for me and myself I will believe that God is purely good.

BTW, I think I can now show that Paul didn’t believe the Old Testament to be inerrant.

In Ephesians 6:12 Paul says that our warfare is “against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” In Colossians 2 Paul connects the ceremonial law with the principalities and powers not with God. For he says Christ “canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us…having nailed it to the cross, having spoiled the principalities and powers, making a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them through it (i.e. the cross). THEREFORE, let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths” (Colossians 2:14-16) If the ceremonial law is from the principalites and powers (against whom our warfare is directed) and not from God, then so are the genocidal commands and stories from the principalities and powers and not from God. They impersonate God in much of the Old Testament according to this.

You make it look like Paul believed in a demonic origin of the OT law, an origin which now is disarmed and THEREFORE we’re no longer under any obligation to the law. Frankly, that’s just plain silly considering everything else Paul has said in similar contexts (Romans 7:12-22; Galatians 3:21-25). The “Therefore” clearly refers to the content of V.14 – the written code (the Mosaic law) which was against us was nailed to the cross. That’s why we’re under no obligation to the OT law anymore. The disarmement of demonic powers is related to the power they had previously in accusing sinners regarding their guilt. Since that guilt was erased on the cross, those principalities have lost their main weapon. The law on the other hand still has always been GOD’S law and is considered “good” and “holy”. Its only negative quality is that it has no saving power. It can only convict us of our acts of transgression and pronounce the curse for the transgressor – a curse which Jesus bore in our place (Galatians 3:13).

And concerning your other comment – I don’t believe in a genocidal maniac. I believe that even God’s judgments (like the flood) are part of His just dealings with the nations. The part I’m taking by faith is that those who can’t possibly be culpable in the same degree as others (like the Canaanite children) will still receive justice in the wider frame of reference of the final judgment before God’s throne (Romans 2:6,16).

I think its clear that Paul views the moral law and the ceremonial law as having different origins, the moral law being from God and the ceremonial law from the principalities and powers. Otherwise, he would not accuse those who follow the ceremonial law (in Col 2:18) of worshiping angels and (in Col 2:20) of seeking to submit to “elemental spirits.”

Rather than making this distinction between moral and ceremonial law, Paul is addressing a form of Jewish gnosticism with an emphasis on certain Jewish rituals and a form of asceticism (V.23). Nowhere in the Old Testament can you find even a hint of approval regarding the worship of angels(V.18).

What kind of Gnosticism would follow Jewish rituals? That’s kinda the opposite of Gnosticism.

Gnosticism in its various forms has always been syncretistic in nature and able to incorporate elements of existing religions. It’s not a big stretch to assume that there were Christian groups who were being influenced by Jewish-Gnostic movements such as the Nasoraeans and the Mandaeans.

Quote:

“It appears that the Νασαραίοι were originally composed at least partly of Jews (viz., Israeli-Samaritans) beginning long before the Christian Era, whose anti-Torah teachings [6] may have had some gnostic leanings. The sect was apparently centered in the areas of Coele-Syria, Galilee and Samaria (essentially corresponding to the long-defunct state of Northern Israel).[7]

The Orthodox Church Father Epiphanius writes: “there were Nasoraeans amongst the Jews before the time of Christ.”[8] They were said to have rejected temple sacrifice and the Torah, but adhered to other Jewish practice. They are described as being vegetarian.[9] Epiphanius says it was unlawful for them to eat meat or make sacrifices.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notzrim

Jesus was a Nazorean! Matthew 2:23 uses the very word Nazorean. However, our English translations translate both Nazorean and Nazarene as if they were the same word to obscure this. This shows that Jesus himself rejected the Torah and the sacrifices as coming from evil angels. In fact, in the Talmud Jesus is called Yeshua haNotzri, isn’t he? I already knew this, but the article you link to on wikipedia also points it out. Not only does it point this out, but also another fact I already knew that the Hebrew word for Christians has always been Notzrim both in 1st century Hebrew and today in modern Hebrew!

How do you think Christianity developed exactly? The god who gave the OT decided he no longer wanted to be a genocidal maniac and a racist and no longer wanted an eye for an eye and hate your enemy and became all nice all of the sudden? Or perhaps an orthodox Jewish Jesus developed Judaism into Christianity without changing anything? That’s an impossibility since they’re different religions. Of course it comes from pre-Christian unorthodox Judaism. Even Amos belonged to an unorthodox version of Judaism in that he condemns animal sacrifices and says in Amos 5 the cause of the Babylonian captivity is the idolatrous tabernacle Moses built in the wilderness and the continuance of sacrifices.

Besides this, the Mandeans teach that John the Baptist overturned the Torah by his preaching. Doesn’t Jesus say “The Torah was until John, but now the gospel is preached”? How Nazorean of him.

In Acts 24:5 where Paul is called “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” the Greek word is again, Nazoreans. And if you will read all of what Epiphanius says about the Nazoreans you will find that he admits that ALL Christians were originally called this, and he even claims the name refers to Nazareth. This article on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect) shows the Greek phrase for “section of the Nazarenes” is ἡ τῶν Ναζωραίων αἵρεσις —h ton Nazoraion airesis—Yet although the Nazoreans and Nazarenes are the same sect, Nazarenes merely being a mistranslation of Nazoreans, you will always find reference materials say the Nazoreans reject the Torah and the Nazarenes follow it. Its a massive cover up. A careful reading of Epiphanius will show this.

Interesting theory, this “massive cover up” you are suggesting. It’s somewhat reminiscent of Dan Brown’s material and his accusations regarding church conspiracies to keep the truth hidden.

Let me just point out that this stuff still doesn’t get a lot of traction with historians although there’s no more official church authority to control or censor them.

Also please remember that I was simply trying to respond to your question how a generally anti-law Gnosticism could possibly incorporate the continuation of Jewish practices, nothing more.

Can I ask you a very different question?
Where does a convinced Marcionite like you(and I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way at all) find Christian fellowship? Or would you say that difference in basic beliefs is not a hindrance for you to fellowship with others?

Well, if this is a conspiracy or massive cover up then I guess Stephen and Paul must be dismissed as crazy conspiracy theorists too. The Torah clearly has God himself appear and give ALL the Torah, but they say, Stephen in Acts 7:53 ”[you] received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it” and Paul in Galatians 3:19 “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions…and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” And the writer of Hebrews, in 2:2 “For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast,....” Jesus must have been a conspiracy nut too because the fundamentalists all call him a liar when he says that the Law says “Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.” (Mat 5:43)

But the problem is that the fundamentalists can’t read the Law, not that Jesus was crazy. The problem here is the same. When you approach the Bible as a perfect, inerrant, infallible text, you will never understand it.

Jesus tells us a conspiracy is at work: God sowed good seed in the field (of Scripture) and the Devil came at night and sowed tares!!!! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

Is Jesus crazy for teaching this conspiracy? No. He is absolutely right is what he is. In fact the conspiracy is so deep that in the same chapter that he gives this parable of the tares, Matthew 13, someone (Ireneaus I’m sure) added a tare in giving a false interpretation of the parable. The field is the world and the good seed the children of God and the bad seed Satan’s children: God sows his people in the world and so does the devil, thus predestination is the meaning of the parable. Um, sorry Ireneaus, but NO IT ISN’T!!!! Where’d the fact that the sowing by the enemy is SNEAKY go in this interpretation????? Its gone. Because the real interpretation is that the fied is Scripture. Jesus is prophecying that it will be corrupted. Dionysius of Corinth, Euseius’ Church History book 4 chapter 23 understands it exactly that way.

But I’m just a nut of course.

Now what kind of fellowship can I find? I’m not sure yet. I attend a regular non-Calvinist church right now, but I grow weary of the insistence on Scriptural inerrancy and the reliance on the OT. I’m not sure what to do. Is the world ready for the truth yet?

I didn’t say you were a nut. But I was assuming it would be difficult to find a whole lot of people who would see it the same way you do.

And irregardless of the accuracy of your belief, that’s a tough spot to be in.

Its be kinda like the spot Jesus was in I suppose.