Tom,

Clark Pinnock “laments God’s inaction in respect to evil.” He believes “God could be doing more than he is doing and wonders why [God] isn’t doing it.”

Perhaps it says something that he is in rather good company. So do the Psalmists. In fact, no Biblical author has solved the problem of theodicy. That should say something too.

And as you know, my biggest problem with the way out of this dilemma that you offer, that is leaves us basically dependent on the good in humans. For obviously, God is trying to persuade us to do the right thing ever since the very beginning of creation, and surely never ceased doing so, nor ever will. That means that, since the best prediction for the future is past behaviour, we actually have no hope, for all our hope for change is in mankind. God has become the constant factor, almost the Aristotelian unmoved mover, for if at any moment He is doing what He did not do before in order to love, He could be blamed for not loving consistently and thus not really loving.

So all of the Biblical hope for God to act in a way He hasn’t done up till now, is wiped away. All that is left is you and me standing in the cold. Understanding a persuasively loving God, who is actually precious little more than that.

When I have to choose between understanding without hope, or hoping without understanding, the choice is easy. I can live without understanding God. Millions of Christians have been able to do that. But where will I be without hope?

Tom Great memory of Singing “Our God is a Wimpy God” to you with Ray Walters as you walk into a classroom… Hahaha

Does this new book present a the same ideas you were developing 10 years ago, a growth/ adaptation or something completely new?

You always had me until we started discussing miracles, and other key issues where God needs to excersize power on a level that would over come creaturely freedom.

interested in the new book

It may be that we need a wider notion of “evil.” It may be true that God can intervene when it comes to particular acts but that is not dealing with or overcoming evil. Evil, at its nature, is personal. Evil has to do with the will, emotions, intentions, feelings, desires, etc. This is the heart of evil and this is what God cannot overcome unilaterally. Yes, there is pain and suffering in nature but I am still leery of calling these events “evil.” From our perspective they often seem pointless and unnecessary, but that may not be the case in the bigger picture. Also, because these events might be necessary that does not mean they are good either.

But why is it that God does not step in to end this suffering and human acts of violence? Because doing so would be counter to God’s fullest plan, which I believe, is not to simply end evil, but to foster good.  That is, God’s plan is to work in concert with humans to bring about more good which would, in turn, reduce and eliminate evil.  This means free will must be a part of the solution, but as we know it is also a problem. WE may be looking for God to intervene to eliminate an evil when in fact we need to be looking for God’s acts of bring good. The solution to the problem of evil is not its end but the overcoming of evil with God. Thus, in order for God to reach the telos intended, God cannot intervene and step on free will to curtail evil acts. Not because God does not have the power to act unilaterally but because God does not have the power to act unilaterally AND achieve the telos of a truly good creation. So, the evil that has to be overcome cannot be overcome by coercively stopping act of violence or pain and suffering but only by the overflow of goodness, love and faith. Evil cannot be overcome unilaterally but only in concert with creation and that may be why God cannot end evil even if God can act miraculously in nature.

Tom,

I could not let go of this and felt we were actually closer than it looked. So I’m sharing some thoughts here.

* Coercion and persuasion.

As I understand, within your theology, God, in order to be loving, cannot be coercive but has to be persuasive. Last night I wondered, “so what”? Do I really care HOW God does what He did, does and will do?
Frankly, no. If He raises the dead by persuasion, I’m cool with that. If He calms the sea and storms by persuasion, that’s fine with me too. My personal concern is not with the how, but with the fact that He can. As long as we agree that God can do what we find Him doing and promising He will do in
the Bible, I should no be so hang up on the how. I understand how it is vital to your concern though.

* God sometimes delays His actions.

Another issue is that in the Scriptures, we find God doing things at a certain point in time, that He didn’t do before. In short, He delayed His actions. Let’s for instance take Genesis 15:

13 Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

So God, because He wanted to act lovingly towards the Amorites, kept the children of Israel in bondage for a longer time than otherwise would have been the case. Consistently, He is moved by love, but love towards one, may look less loving towards others. I think we all, in dealing with people, have found this to be the case at times.

This led me towards a verse I usually don’t like, but in this case may hold more promise than I generally give it credit for:

2 Peter 3:9 - “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

Again, the Lord delays His actions out of love.

In both cases, He could have acted earlier but did not, out of love towards people that would otherwise perish.

Would this take be compatible with your theology?

An exciting book Tom, I look forward to reading it.  One statement in this article I would like to look into a little deeper is your statement:

“Part of what it means to love steadfastly, I argue, is to act continually to promote overall well-being. The God whom Pinnock describes possesses coercive power but sometimes fails to thwart genuinely evil tragedies, holocausts, catastrophes, and horrors. This is not steadfast love.”

One of the issues I think that emerges from your statement is an omniscient view of events.  What I mean is that we often see events as evil based on the human experience.  But, we seem horribly short sided within that view.  We are using criteria that may not be significant to God, or may be ignoring the impact of an alternate series of events.

We usually see the loss of life and view it as a horrific event.  That is based upon our own limited knowledge.  While I type this, I tend to argue with myself, yet, I feel that while I would view the WWII Holocaust as horrific and perhaps one of the best demonstrations of pure evil, I am also left with a few realizations. 

Millions died, as a human, I cannot look at a loss of life on that scale and not be moved.  However, God has seen all deaths.  Not that any of them don’t move them, scripture says he is aware of each sparrow that falls.  I think the difference is that God has a view that so extends beyond ours that perhaps in his view, there was something even more evil that was thwarted by the series of events that led to the Holocaust. 

It seems that our desire that he would act coercively to thwart the actions is an example of where we often want to be judged at our best while others (especially those we view as “evil”) should be judged at their worst.  We want grace in our own actions, yet would not see grace extended toward others as a loving act of an all powerful creator.

Because of these points, I wonder if too high a standard is being applied in saying that Pinnock’s view must solve the problem of evil.  That being said, I am eager to read how you apply Essential Kenosis to this problem. 

I am reminded that while we look to a solution for evil in the world, God has provided the solution for the evil that is within each of our own hearts.  I am also left to wonder which of those two evils is greater.

I am so intrigued by this post, Tom!  In fact, I just went over to amazon and ordered your new book, “the nature of love”.  I am very excited to see how you integrate “essential kenosis” with miracles,  the resurrection and a final eschatological victory.  Speaking personally, I really struggle with the problem of evil while maintaining belief in miracles.  It sounds to me like your approach is the middle-path that I have been digging for.  Can’t wait to read it!

“To present God as consistently loving, however, we must deny God can totally control others.”

It all comes down to our choice to let Him in.  Our hearts, guided by the H.S. can be then an instrument of divine Love even though we might not understand it nor likely can we always comprihend. Even so, it comes down to giving up our lives(every day). And then God is able to use us and build His Kingdom.
That does stil mean that people who are not willing to surrender or willingly don’t want to do good are still creating death and grief on the cost of others, nature and God.

At the risk of creating a rabbit trail (I will try not to), have you considered how the theory of evolution and sociobiology may aid in dealing with the problem of evil?  I am still unsure myself, but natural selection and sociobiology’s explanation of human altruism seem to offer good explanations for the presence of evil in creation.  I am generalizing right now, but only consider myself a newborn in these matters and so generalizations are where I have to stay at the present time.

@Eric: Can you elaborate more on your ideas connecting natural selection plus sociobiology and evil in creation? And what does this mean for original sin(constructionwise)?