Jeremy Langill

As our reading list grows, I will make sure to add those items. If you have questions about the topics generally covered in these books, please send an email to Exodus or respond to this post. Thanks!

Jeremy L.

What could God do?

by Jeremy Langill on Sep.07, 2009, under Problem of Evil, Sunday Nights, Thoughts

Last night we spent a considerable amount of time discussing what God could do, specifically as it relates to the problem of evil in the world. For most Christians, they are fairly comfortable with the idea that God is not only the creator and author of all things, but knows what will happen to each of us (perfectly) and the choices that we will make. Naturally, this line of thinking can lead us to some important philosophical issues, specifically that if God is all powerful and knows all things then isn’t God, at the end of the picture, at least responsible for the problem of evil.

Let us consider the following thought:

God (by God’s very nature) can do whatever God wants to do.

God, being all powerful, creates the world that we live in.

Let’s stop here for a moment. I realize that many thinkers disagree on these characteristics of God, but for the sake of the argument, let’s assume that the vast majority of Christians think about God this way, having little or no training in different theological perspectives that view the very nature of God differently.

The question that quickly comes up for me is, if God could create in any way possible, why did God create the world in the way that God did? For example, it is possible to conceive of a creation where there was no “original” sin, where the world never existed as “fallen”, where there existed none of the conceptual frameworks and boundaries that are common to our Christian understanding (i.e., freewill, grace, mercy, etc.). It is possible to conceive of a world where God simply created us perfectly, free from the issues that disturb us today.

On this picture, wouldn’t God be ultimately responsible for the evil that exists in the world today? To be sure, some would instantly argue with me, that it is precisely because God did not create that perfect world that we can know that God “values” the qualities of our life (grace, mercy, freewill) that we define as key components of our relationship with God. However, God only “values” (if we can even say that we know that God values anything from us at all) those things that we understand in this creative construct. In other words, if we lived in the perfect world mentioned previously then we would not understand God in the way that we understand God now–the rules of the game, so to speak, would be entirely different. The language and grammar of our very existence would not be the same. Comparing what we think God values of us in this world to what we think God would value of us in a different creative construct would be like comparing apples to oranges. Just because we define our existence now by a certain set of terms does not mean that we would do the same thing had the world been created entirely different.

That God created the world that God did does not mean God could not have created it differently, since by our earlier definition, God’s creative ability is unrestricted and unfettered. Our created status only has significance insofar as it is wholly dependent on God as its source. We may still ask, why didn’t the source create differently? The fact that we value this current existence says nothing about whether or not God could have done it differently or even values it in the same way that we do.

Thus, the problem still exists–if God could have created the world differently then, logically speaking, God could have created a world just as meaningful as the one we live in now, only without the evil, sin, and suffering we experience now–the question still remains as to why God did not do this.

There are, by the way, philosophical arguments which address this very question. Some have argued that this creation is in fact the “best of all possible worlds” while others have said we need to change our notions of the character and creative qualities of God. This post is far too long to go into all of those details, but as we continue on through our series of suffering and evil, hopefully we will have a chance to explore those options as well.

5 Comments more...

Responsibility

by Jeremy Langill on Jun.08, 2009, under Sunday Nights, Thoughts

Something that Phil and I discussed later in the evening, after tonight’s talk had ended, was what it means to give and act responsibly. Let us start out with the premise that it is best to act responsibly whenever possible. Our first question quickly becomes, what does it mean to act in a responsible manner? Different people will have different answers, but I suspect that the majority of us could find some consensus on its meaning, that is, to make good choices.

What is problematic, though, are the reasons for the choices that we make when it comes to responsible judgments and actions. I can choose to be responsible in a given situation, but is it really for the sake of responsibility? Let us give an example: There is a homeless man begging for money on the street–two obvious responses are as follows: to give or not to give. In the case of the latter, a reason for not giving may be a belief (justifiable or not) that the homeless person will spend the money unwisely, thus making him undeserving of one’s charity.

Jesus addresses this situation in a peculiar fashion, one that is often overlooked when discussing the merits of charitable given. In Luke 6, Jesus compels us to give alms (to the poor) without reservation, and to lend to people without any expectation of being repaid. Jesus gives us an example of charity that is, by any standard definition, irresponsible. In our world, we do not lend to people who cannot pay a loan back. And we often withhold money from the poor for fear of how they may use it.

Perhaps the most difficult part of giving is understanding its motivations. I believe that Jesus is not simply giving us an example of giving that is by definition “irresponsible”, but is encouraging us to examine the reasons behind why we give (or do not give). Do we give only because it is convenient, only in situations where we feel we can control its outcome or direct it towards some desired effect? Ultimately, the definition of responsibility is tied to some cultural expectation, some meaning that is connected to more than just a religious perspective. I believe Jesus gives us an example of giving that goes beyond some merely human idea of what it means to be responsible, an example that at its core is not tied to either an idea of responsibility or irresponsibility, but is tied to the very heart of the matter; why we give and ultimately to whom we believe we are giving.

3 Comments more...