Skip to main content

God - a) all-powerful, b) loving - choose one of the above

Thanks very much to all those who commented on my last blog post and on Pete Greig's article, both attempting a response to Stephen Fry's fascinating comments about the nasty god who allows such suffering and then demands that all bow down and worship him.

I would like to start with a disclaimer: I am no philosopher and only a wannabe theologian and these are BIG topics which people far cleverer than me have debated in many books I have not read.  (I'm not being modest: in preparation for my last blog post I skim-re-read a chapter in a book by Paul Fiddes, former principal of Regent's Park College, who has a brain the size of a planet.  I don't understand most of what he says in person, but fortunately his writing is beautifully clear).  As long as you all imagine that we're down the pub (or having a coffee, my teetotal friends) having a good late-night debate throwing some ideas around, I'll attempt to present some more thoughts.

Caroline, you pointed out that Pete Greig was claiming that God was responsible for all the lovely stuff in the world on the one hand, but not responsible for the bad stuff, which seemed very confused.  So is God omnipotent or isn't he?  My understanding of Christian doctrine is that God is all-powerful but, in creating something other than himself (the universe, including human beings) he took a big risk.  He created something other than himself which, in the case of humans, could think, decide and act for themselves (free will) and hence decide not to do the godly or in other words right thing.  Choosing to be apart from God and to act outside his will is (to use religious language) sin.  The account of the 'fall' in Genesis chapter 3 - Adam and Eve, the serpent, the apple - seems to suggest (whether you understand it as a literal account of historical events or a story which conveys truth) that the whole of creation is affected by humanity's fall.  So for example the man is told that he will bring food from the ground only with great hardship and effort, and the woman that she will produce children only with great pain.  Is the argument more convincing if the all-powerful God chooses to limit his own power to intervene in order to allow free will to those he loves?  Is the argument at least a bit less confused?  Do tell!

I think the bit that really annoyed you though was the assertion that Christianity offers comfort whereas atheism doesn't (or not at first glance).  I'm reminded of a scene in The Good Wife where Alicia's daughter, Grace, is trying to comfort her after the sudden and violent death of a friend.  "He's with God", Grace assures her.  Alicia doesn't believe that's true.  Grace protests that that isn't a view of the world that offers any comfort.  Alicia replies that it's a less comforting view but a truer one.  She refuses to be consoled by a comforting lie.  

So here's a question, paraphrased from Tom Stoppard who pinched it from someone else: what would the world look like if it looked like a loving and all-powerful God had made it?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Halloween

It's that magical time of year again - that one night when my small neighbours knock on my door asking for sweeties.  This year, I'm properly prepared: I have two pumpkins (I wanted five, but decided to be thrifty), a big tub of sweets and a tube of 100 glow sticks.  The sweets are my concession to popular demand; the glow sticks are an attempt to represent light in darkness (a symbolism which will doubtless be lost on the kids).  I'm seeing the pumpkin as my main opportunity to communicate something of my Christian faith to my neighbours. One year, while I was at theological college, Halloween fell on a Sunday.  The new housing estate church I was assigned to met in a church hall on Sunday afternoons and many of the congregation were unaccompanied children.  I googled 'Christian pumpkin carvings' and guess what - there are a lot of ideas out there, America being a country which is big on Halloween and big on Christianity too.  I decided to carve a simple f...

Only connect

Last year on Ash Wednesday I attended an ashing service at St Paul's Cathedral.  The service focused on confessing our sins and asking God's forgiveness.  During the service a berobed priest made the sign of the cross in ash on my forehead.  I thought this was pretty cool and refused my husband's request that I rub it off for the train journey home.  Then we ran into an old work colleague of mine and I felt rather stupid. Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, is all about sin and repentance - 'sackcloth and ashes' and all that.  But I wonder how many people in the UK today identify with the idea that they are sinners in need of forgiveness?  My final year dissertation at theological college focused on the dilemma of how to call to repentance people who do not think they have anything of which to repent.  I certainly didn't think of myself as a sinner when I first started exploring Christianity.  I knew I wasn't perfect, but hey, who is? I have hea...

Broken at the altar

A new drama series by Jimmy McGovern finished a couple of weeks ago on the BBC. Broken  tells the story of Roman Catholic priest Father Michael Kerrigan, a broken person ministering to other broken people in an unnamed northern city. It's still available on BBC iPlayer and I would encourage you to watch it - only be prepared for a few grim hours. I'll try to avoid spoilers here. Michael has a problem: whenever he celebrates Mass (which I think in the Roman Catholic Church is every day), he has flashbacks. At the moment of consecration - the point at which, Catholics believe, the bread and wine physically become for us the body and blood of Christ - he remembers every shameful thing he's ever done, and every shameful thing that has been done to him. We see his mother screaming at him that he's a dirty, filthy little boy; young women crying because he has treated them badly; mistakes he has made as a priest; people he has let down. His voice falters and he struggles ...