is this a god of love 1991

8/13/2019 Is This a God of Love 1991

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/is-this-a-god-of-love-1991 1/206



Is This a GodOf Love?

A. E. Wilder-Smith

TW FT. PublishersC t M C lif i



The Origin of Evil 67

N ature Of Love And Virtue 70

Rebekah 75

The Am non And Tamar Affair 76

Free Choice 78

The Case Of The Robot 80

The Grand Risk 82

Almsgiving And The Socialist State 83George M uller's Orphanag es 87

The Creation, Seen And Unseen 91

The Dignity Of M an 95

The Degree Of M an 's Freedom 97

The Problem of Rebuilding 103

The Problem Of The Consequences 105

The Problem Of G od 's Answer 108

H ow To Restore Love 110

Thw arting G od 's Will 112

King George VI Of England 113

The Final Refusal 117Suffering: Is There Any Reasonable Interpretation? ..125

Resentment Against Purposeless Suffering 125



W as Christ Ever In M an 's Position? 128The Cross And G od 's Love 130

H ur ting In Orde r To Heal 132

The Scriptural Position 134

Accurate Surgery Or W holesale Butchery? 136

The Exact Therapy Of The Cross 137

A Less Ugly W ay? 140

M ad e Perfect 142Suffering — N ot Senseless 146

Prom ised Tribulation 149

The Reason W hy 150

Perfection 154Rejoicing In Suffering 157

A Possible M isunderstand ing 158

Gentling Process 160

Again, W hy All The Barbarism And Cruelty? ...162

Importance Of The Stakes 165

The Joy Of Relief 166

Predestination & Free Will 175Passages Teaching Free Will 176



"The to rtu re s occu r. If th ey areunnecessary, then there is no God or abad one. If there is a good God, then these

tortures are necessary."C. S. Lewis



Chapter IThe Pink Professor

When I was a student of naturalsciences in England, some of our lectureswere givenby a professor who had markedleftist tendencies. His lectures a t the uni-versity were the poorest we ever endured.

He'd bring a load of scientific journals intothe lecture hall, open them, apparently a trandom, and then ju s t talk. But he was agentleman and was kind, in his reservedway, to all of u s .

Acomplete transformation took placein the evenings when he went into townand stood on a soapbox to ha rangue the



Is This a God of Love?

convinced revolutionary. He was noblyrewarded by his leftist political friendswhen they gained control of the country,for he soon became a peer, with the title of

"lord," and was appointed an importantadministrator of a big university.

This professor was, in common withmany Marxist theorists, a convinced and

militant atheist One day he came into thelaboratory, unnoticed by me, as I wastalking to another student about thingsother than purely materialistic science. Iremarked that, not surprisingly, the studyof matter would probably yield informa-tion only about matter. Trans-materialmatters migjit exist, but they would beoverlooked by such methods. One could

not expect to pick up ultraviolet light witha film sensitive only to infrared light. Buteven if infrared paper showed nothingthat would not prove that no ultravioletwave-lengths existed. I saw no reason notto believe in God merely because ourinstruments had not detected him. Per-haps they were not on the same wave-l h



H ie Pink Professor

Overhearing these remarks, our pro-fessor exploded. It really is a mystery tome," he said, "how otherwise intelligentpeople can say they believe in any god, let

alone in a good and wise one, whom theycall a person. We can explain the wholeuniverse and all of life without resorting tothe outdated and unnecessary postulate

of a god behind it all. Chance and longtime spans will do all that your theolo-gians imagine he did without ever appeal-ing to such nonsense as the 'Old Man inthe Skies."

He continued: It really is beyond mycomprehension that intelligent people to-day could still be taken in by the same olddrivel. I can understand cannibals in the

jungle talking a s you do. But not a studentof the natural sciences in the twentiethcentury. It is bad enough to have peoplebelieving theoretically in a god behindthings. But you people are much worse.You believe you have a personal sort offriendship with this god of yours andthink you will therefore get preferential

f hi I d d




perhaps, some old people saying theybelieve in some sort of mysterious spiritwhen they see a sunrise, a beautiful face,a rose or an orchid. But it is proof ofpositive lack in intelligence on the part ofthose same people when they do not takethe time to see the other side of the coin.They have not the courage to see the other

side and boldly throw out their mythicalgods — the cowards "Having switched into his soapbox

mood, our professor was in dead earnest— and angry "People m ust be lacking inI.Q. if they do not see the other side of thepicture which wipes out all the sunset andbeauty stuff.** He continued by talkingabout the cat stalking the mouse andplaying with i t letting it totter away halfdead and then grabbing it again at the lastminute in its horrible claws. Then, whenthe poor mouse did not have the strength

to provide any more fun for the cat, itwould squeeze the life out of its tatteredbody, biting its head off with a juicycrunch, and purring with delight at the



The Pink Professor

that your intelligent almighty, all-lovingand kind god prepared both the mouse inits helplessness and the cat with its talonstrength and cruel mentality. This is abeautiful proof of the goodness of yourgod," he said, with a look of profoundscorn in m y direction.

I shrank into my corner of the labora-

tory, but he had not finished with me."What about the young mother dying ofcancer, her body stinking of decay beforethey take the baby from her and pu therinher coffin? Is that your proof of the greatCreator who made all things well — allthings brightandbeautiful?TheLord Godmade them all," he hissed. "And whatabout your capitalists who have worndown the working masses for centuriesand built your churches to help you do it?We are going to alter all that — andquickly, believe me "

"What disgusts me," he said, "is therank hypocrisy of it all." After a pause toregain his poise, he added, "What aboutall the agony— the agony of the father and



Is Tliis a God of Love?

mother? What about the lifetimes of hun-ger suffered by the poor in India andRussia? Did your good god create all thatas well as the sunrises and the laughing

faces?" Looking grimly at me, he leanedacross the table and said slowly, "Be-cause, if he did — if he did make thedisgusting, the cruel and the nauseating,

as well as the beautiful — then I, for one,would believe him to be a devil and not agod. Only a devil could make the appar-ently beautiful and then mock u s all withthe anguish of the disgusting. But, as I amnot so medieval as to believe either indevils or gods, for that matter, I regard thewhole argument as a pure wanton wasteof time, not worthy of mention in a scien-

tific laboratory."Having unburdened his soul, he re-

gained some of his professorial aplomband smilingly looked around for any an-

swers that might be forthcoming. Imumbled something to the effect that h iswas only one side of the question. Othergreat people had no difficulty in maintain-



The Pink Professor

"Let u s leave out the question of warsand suffering caused by man himself, hesaid. We might explain problems causedby man directly as due to his not beingevolved far enough away from h is animalancestors. If we wait long enough, he willevolve higher and get better. Let u s leavethat and look at another field to which no

one has ever honestly turned with a replythat was satisfactory to me. What aboutthe refinement of torture we see all aroundu s which has nothing whatever to do withman's nature? Take the designed torturewe can all see in the transmission of themalarial parasite. It show s signs of whatlooks like careful, thoughtful planningwith the single purpose of plaguing and

torturing the host animal, or man. To methe whole system looks like a remarkablesort of planning, if a good god worked it allout. As I said before, if you want a plan

behind the universe and life, this sort ofsetup and planning seem s to show a goodand a bad, a kindly and a vindictiveplanner all in one— a god who is a devil."



8 Is This a God of Love?

Musing, he continued, "No, I justcannot believe th is religious stuff myself.It really is ju st too ridiculous. My intelli-gence and my common sense force me to

reject the whole bag of nonsense. I amnear enough to being a nihilist you tellme. But I should become an absolutenihilist if I were to force myself to believe in

a god who is a devil. An almighty god, suchas you believe in, and a good god, justcould not show so many evidences of whatappear to be thoughtful, planned good-ness, such as sunrises and other beau-ties, and at the sam e time so many signsof cold, calculated, intelligent, sadism. Ifyou were able to develop sufficient logic,"he said, scornfully addressing himself

directly to me, "you would have recog-nized long ago that your views lead di-rectly to nihilism. Can you imagine anysupreme, almigjity, personal being, whow as at the sam e time all-wise and all-goodand yet frightfully vindictive and bad,planning all sorts of plagues and diseasesas well as the beauty of the rising sun and



The Pink Professor

the healthy body? It ju st does not makesense. It is plain bunk." He turned fromme in contempt.

There was quiet for a short while.Then he began once more: "Of course, youpeople always try to get around the diffi-culty by actually assuming a devil, whosurprised the all-knowing and all-power-

ful, almighty one by upsetting h is applecart when he w as not looking. I supposeyou attribute the disease, cancer, war,exploitation of the workers, and all therest of this world's woes to a devil, do younot? But do you not realize that if god werealmigfity and good, wishing u s — the so -called creatures of his hand — well, hemust have neutralized the machinationsof your devil before he got to work with hishosts of wicked angels in which you, nodoubt, believe? Then the devil could nothave been a source of devilry, could he? Of

course, if your god is not almighty withrespect to the devil, then there is only onething to say about him: he is not god at allany more. So you destroy him this way if




god cannot get even with the devil, thenthe devil must be god too; and we are oncemore reduced to the primitive ideas ofwarring gods and devils in heaven and

hell. You are not suggesting that we revertto ideas like that, are you? They held upintellectual progress and emancipationfor centuries. I shall consider you anenemy of all true progress if you have theeffrontery to inform me in a scientificlaboratory that you believe in that sort oftrash," he said, looking hard at me.

I am afraid most of u s were rather likethe proverbial rabbit when confronted bythe snake — transfixed. No answersseem ed to be able to formulate themselvesin our brains. After all, our professor was

a learned man. He w as not ju st repeatingslogans learned in Marxist circles. Obvi-ously he w as thoroughly convinced of hisviews. His extreme seriousness made himwilling to stand up on a soapbox andconfront the mob — an act which m usthave been rather humiliating for a profes-sor of his standing. Although he was

l t l f d l t




call religion "opium for the people." It isju s t that; it m uddles their thoughts, blu rstheir vision and, because they can seeclearly no more, renders them an easyprey for the capitalists who are ju s t wait-ing to exploit them for their own benefit."

The Spokesman Of Many ThinkingPeople

I have never forgotten th a t afternoonin the laboratory. Certainly our professorhad thought more about these matters

th an we stu den ts had. Moreover, he u n -derstood the problems of the ordinarythinking m en and, when he wished, couldbe an excellent spokesm an for them . Be-cau se he understood them , he could swaythem when he spoke. He never spoke withsuch conviction on cold, matter-of-factchemical matters, but no one could getac ross ideas like he when revolution and

Marxism cam e up . His attitudes are stilltypical of m any university professors allover th e West. Since the total collapse ofMarxism behind the former iron curtain



The Pink Professor 13

have abandoned the views of our pinkprofessor for the simple reason that theywork neither economically nor socially.

Tlie subject raised that afternoon inthe laboratory is the very question occu-pying the m inds of many thinking peoplein the West today. It looms large in the lifeof the person who, though satiated with

life's material goods and apparently con-cerned only with pleasure and prosperity,is brought face to face with life's crueltiesand suffering every day in his newspaperand on radio and television news, and isjolted by what is happening around him inhis own life. If God is almighty—and if heis God, he must be almighty — whydoesn't he stop all this chaos, all these

wars, all the unrighteousness, injustice,misery and suffering in this world? Whydid he ever let them start? Mere meneverywhere are bending all their efforts to

do what they can to stop it all. But,fortunately or unfortunately, men are notalmighty and therefore cannot reach theirgoal.



14 Is U lis a God of Love?

Years ago, a student friend crippledwith polio told me, "If you want me tobelieve in your God, I shall expect him firstof all to make a better job of the world we

live in— and of me.** I spent a good deal oftime with him and he was apparently gladto listen to me. In my student enthusiasmI explained not only the Christian way ofsalvation by Christ's works, but also theintricacies of prophecy and the end of theage. Afterward he turned to me and saidthat now that he knew the way, he didn'tneed to do anything about it. For, when he

saw the end coining, he would quicklyaccept God's way and be all right foreverA year or two later he was stricken with astroke one Sunday morning while shav-

ing. He died in seconds, without a sound.His wife found him an hour or so later.If God loves us m en and women, as

the Bible assum es he does, why doesn'the end all misery and immediately se t upa workable, orderly system such a s mostpeople of good will would like and forwhich they are striving? Doesn't he carefor u s any longer? If he doesn't care and



Tlie Pink Professor 15

has forgotten us, why should we careabout him ? Because he h a s allowed evil toexist along with good, thus apparentlycompromising himselfin his omnipotence,

m any thinking people despair of an an-swer, or become atheists, just as myprofessor had done.

The Problem Is Not New

Before further consideration of thisquestion, we m ust remind ourselves th a tit is by no means new. Some have them istaken idea tha t they are very m odemif they handle th e question a s my profes-sor did. They think tha t it stam ps them asbeing advanced thinkers in having recog-nized th a t mankind is facing a new prob-lem — and th a t they have solved it in aparticularly new way.

Of course, this is not the case. W henthist les and thorns sprang up after

m ankind's first couple had fallen from theparadise of God by disobedience, theyprobably asked the sam e sort of question.W hy indeed did God allow all th is? Does




looks a s if he does n o t for the very groundwe cultivate does not bring forth its har-vest any more. The birth of Cain wasprobably accomplished by pain, which

was capped whenhe became his brother'smurderer. How can that grisly historycoincide with God's goodness and om-nipotence?

Job could have asked the same kindof questions when the messengers cameto him, one after another, each reportinga worse catastrophe to h is family. It got sobad that Job cursed the day he had beenborn. He lost everything, including hishealth. Even his wife deserted him, tellinghim to curse God and die. How could Jobbelieve in a holy, perfect and omnipotent

God, concerned about him and his family,when all the catastrophes about himpointed in the opposite direction? He isGod. He could have stopped it if he hadwanted to. Did he want to find a way outfor Job? And, if not, was he a sadist? Didhe still care about Job in allowing all thisto happen to the poor innocent man? Thetestimony of God and man was that Job




was perfect — and innocent Yet it allhappened, and no explanation was forth-coming — except that good Job praisedGod for having given and then taken awayagain. No real answer was forthcominguntil rightattheend of thebook. If God didnot care about poor, innocent perfectJob, why should Job love God? Of course

God cared for Job in a way which hadnever occurred to Job. God justified Jobbefore all heaven by demonstrating Job'ssteadfastness under duress.

It is true, of course, that there was stilla great deal in Job and Adam's worldswhich pointed to God's care in spite ofthorns and thistles and catastrophes. Butit is also true that there is ju st as m uch in

our world. At the beginning of Adam'scareer the picture pointing to God's careand love w as clear. In that earlier world,everything indicated only God's care and

omnipotence. Many things now pointedaway from this direction, and the area ofGod's order had retreated into quite aminute spot on the stage of life. So the




and Job's times as they do now. Thus, theproblem is by no means new. It is a s old asmankind.

Accordingly, the question presentsitself as follows: "Why should we be askedto believe and trust in a good God, therebyflying in the face of all— or at least a gooddeal of — the contemporary evidence?"

One physicist put it as follows: "Why doesGod value faith in him so much as to makeit the very condition, according to theChristian way of life, of entry into hiskingdom? It seem s most unfair to me. Forfaith means believing right in the face ofcontradictory evidence. Faith, to me, ismerely the result of forcing myself tobelieve and trust in God fs goodness and

care when a goodly part of the evidence onhand leads me to reject such a trust. Mostpreachers seem to preach faith as thoughit were the faculty of believing something

which is not true — forcing oneself tobelieve and act in spite of evidence to thecontrary. Why should God value a faithwhich acts against all common sense and




of our highest faculties: the ability toweigh evidence and then ac t on it. Faithbelieves what it cannot see; it acceptsevidence it cannot weigh. Why should

God make a s a condition for entering h ispresence and kingdom o ur ability to shortcircuit, abuse and render null and voidthe very logic and evidence-weigjiing fac-ulty with which the Bible says he endowedus? God gave u s logical ability. W hy doeshe demand that we act and think illogi-cally in faith a s a condition of entering hiskingdom?"

To return to our first line of approachto th is problem, then, the question is : ifthe same Being planned both the goodand the bad, the beautiful and the ugly,

the sadistic and the loving, then all seri-ous, logical, reasoning thought about himbecomes impossible with our thinkingfaculties.

Another Approach

W hat does the Bible teach about thisapparent state of illogic? Remarkably



20 Is Tliis a God of Love?

Testament sees any illogic in the situa-tion For example, in Romans 1, whichdeals with this question in detail, Paul theapostle teaches in a clear and uncompro-

mising manner that creation doesn't showthe slightest sign of contradiction in thesematters. It gives only one plain line ofthought: that the whole creation revealsthat God is a glorious, omnipotent Creator— and nothing else. Paul says, "Becausethat which maybe known of God is mani-fest in them; for God has shown it untothem. For the invisible things of him fromthe creation of the world are clearly seen,being understood by the things that aremade (nature), even his eternal power andGodhead; so that they are without ex-

cuse."1

Thus, the Bible teaches, as do manyancient sources, that when a man regardsnature, he is seeing, as in a mirror, theCreator. The Bible doesn't ignore the ap-parent problems of war, disease, poverty,pain and chaos. It says quite a lot aboutthese subjects and even suggests curesf f h B i d h




in the light in which my professor sawthem. The Bible does not think that thesethings cloud the issue about the Creator,as do many thinking people. Rather, itteaches that the person who regards na-ture as it is today and does not see thepower of a glorious, invisible Godhead innature—with no clouding of the issue by

the mixture of good and evil we all see —that person is "without excuse* for notbelieving TTiis is surely a rather strong pillto the modem intellectual who pleadsintellectual difficulties for his disbelief inGod.

Adding insult to injury, the Bible goesone step further in teaching that not onlyshould a person see the Godhead, theglorious Creator, when he sees mixednature, b u t seeing i t he should be filledwith thanks to God, glorifying him forrevealing his wisdom and power in the

creation. So, apparently I should have toldmy professor that he w as not only "with-out excuse" but also a "thankless" person— if I had been ready to give him a biblical




would have appreciated that Certainty, atthat time I did not have the necessarymaturity to say such a thing withoutcausing a major incident and a lot ofmisunderstanding.

Paul continues the argument bymaintaining that a sense of wonder andreverence should fill every observer of the

present confused creation. Offsetting thiswonder should be a sense of our ownvanity and foolishness, pervading u s andall who do not see the creation in this light.Finally, all these feelings on observingGod's handiwork should make the ob-server a Worshipper." If I had told myprofessor that he had all the evidencenecessary to make him fell on his knees

and worship God, undoubtedly he wouldhave thougjit me a lunatic.But Paul insists that if those reac-

tions to the creation don't take place in us,

we are abusing our reasoning powers. Asa consequence of this abuse we shallbecome totally unable, in the course oftime, to use our higher reasoning faculties




ences and other disciplines have oftenexperienced the most difficulties with re-spect to worshipping and believing. In-deed, quite a majority have simply turnedaway from any thought of God.

Investigation of "that which is seen"has not revealed to them the "unseen" buthas often turned them from believing in

anything divine and invisible. In no wayhas it made them worshippers of someunseen Being. For what they have per-ceived shows so many paradoxes andapparent contradictions that, judging theunseen by their perception, it becomeseither ridiculous or superfluous for fur-ther serious thought.

Some intellectuals conclude that if

the seen can give no credible picture of theunseen , being a Christian is synonymouswith being a third-rate intellectual. Theyassum e that the Christianis intellectually

incapable of comprehending the contra-dictions and paradoxes inherent in theallegedly rather naive and intellectuallyimpossible Christian faith.



7

Chapter nThought and Action: Todayand Yesterday

Few realize how differently peopletoday use the process of thinking a s com-pared to individuals of a hundred years

ago. We live in an age of unprecedentedtechnology and, therefore, of technologi-cal thought, so of necessity technologicalsubject matte r m ust color today's thoughtprocesses more than in the past. How-ever, beyond a m ere change of shades ofthought, entirely new thought processes




or modes have been adopted. Radicalchanges in the very mechanism of thoughthave occurred.

A century ago the average thinking

person considered life and the universe tobe orderly and contain meaning. He will-ingly admitted that it was often difficult todiscover the meaning and order behind

things. But this fact did not disturb him inhis basis of thought namely, that orderand meaning were there if he could onlyfind them. Thougji human stupidity orweakness might distort and slow downthe unraveling of meaning, the meaningwas still there. The book of the universeand of life w as hard to decode or read. Butthe average thinker was still convinced

that it was a code capable of being deci-phered if sufficient insight and intelli-gence could be brought to bear on i t

Based on such premises, huge efforts

were easily justified in the quest to deci-pher the mysteries of the meaning andmechanisms of life and the universe. Theoverrun from this conviction can be seen



3 0 Is This a God of Love?

ful, thought processes today are governedby exactly the opposite premise. Sartre,Camus and other modern thinkers haveobtained the highest praise from today'sintelligentsia for elegantly and cleverlyconveying the premise that life, m an andthe universe are meaningless. It naturallyfollows, therefore, that suffering is mean-

ingless too.Only in such a cultural atmospherewere scientific theories as those of Darwinable to take root and flourish both inscientific and popular circles. For Darwin,aided by Huxley, propagated the view,using mountains of scientific detail asevidence, that all life processes arosespontaneously, without motivation or ra-

tionale, from randomness. In the lastanalysis, randomness is congruent withlack of order and, therefore, with lack ofmeaning. According to this view, the mix-

tures of amino acids which are supposedto have given spontaneous birth to lifeshowed no meaning or motivation behindthem. No volition guided these and other



Thought and Action: 31Today and Yesterday

which make u p DNA as we know it today.Tlie first nucleic ad d s and proteins alleg-edly arose spontaneously from m eaning-lessness. This boils down to saying th a t ifthere is any meaning in life or its origin a tall, th a t m eaning m ust be based on sheermeaninglessness. The same applies tolife's destiny — it must be meaningless

too.Equating Fact To Non-Fact

Thus biological sciences are also

mixed u p in the changes in though t pro-cesses which have so radically altered themodern world. Consider the lengths towhich scientific philosophers such a s SirJu lian Huxley have gone. He teaches allwho will listen that human and socialorder flourish better if hum ans believe ina god or support som e sort of religion, fortheir belief helps them respect each other.

Therefore, he advocates the propagationof some sort of belief in a god external tona ture , even though he says tha t we, theenlightened ones, well know th a t su ch a




facts ofnature, but is thoroughly false anddeceptive. "Religion today is imprisonedin a theistic frame of ideas," he claims,"compelled to operate in the unrealities of

the dualistic world. In the unitary hu-manistic frame it acquires a new look andnew freedoms. With the aid of our newvision it has the opportunity of escaping

from the theistic impasse and of playingits proper role in the real world of unitaryexistence."1

Schaeffer rightiy observes: "Now itmay be true that it can be shown byobservation that society copes better withlife through believing that there is a god.But in that case, surely optimistic hu-manism i s be ing essen t ia l ly

unreasonable... if, in order to be optimis-tic, it rests upon the necessity of mankindbelieving and functioning upon a lie."

In other words, human society de-

monstrably needs to believe in a god tofunction optimally. All right says today'sscientific philosopher, "let them cany onwith that belief if it helps them function,




Huxley has no objection to believing in"anti-facts" if that allows man to continuebeing optimistically hum anist

Consider the chaos implicit in thiskind of thought pattern. Huxleyis ascien-tific humanist who believes in "unitaryexistence** — no divine existence outsidehuman existence. This means that there

is no thought (Descartes* proof of exist-ence) besides human (or possibly animal)thought. Y et the human thought he usesis calmly allowed to be non-thought forthere is no objection to holding a non-godto be a real godl

Surely everyone, including the ratio-nalist believes that man is a rationalbeing, and that rationality is a part — an

integral part— of every man. To postulatethat man, in order to function, must benon-rational, will divide and destroy hisvery being. This is the position to whichscientific philosophy in some quarters —and they are influential quarters — hasled us. Not only is this the main line inpresent-day intellectual thought postu-l d b if d i ll l lik l




Camus and Sart re , but Fel l ini andAntonioni of Italy, Slessinger of Englandand Bergm an of Sweden all actively pro-claim the sam e "irrational rationalism" intheir films. Thus, the view that life ismeaningless is no t merely the property ofthe highbrows bu t is being claimed by so-called lowbrows too. Popular m ass educa-

tion is seeing to this. Nobel prizes aredoled out to those who are responsible forteachings that are destroyingrational m an

How Faith Is Gained

How can one get a m an to believe in anon-fact in the sam e way th a t our fathersbelieved in demonstrable facts? That isthe grand feat which m odem thought h a snow accomplished with Kierkegaard's aid.A new methodology was developed espe-cially for this one purpose — how tobelieve in and be convinced of non-factsand m ake them the bas is of our faith.

The patte rn is quite simple. If a m ancan see no rational rhyme, sense norreason in life and its problems if he




mysteries, then he must no longer seeksolutions by rational thought He mustclose his eyes, throw life's textbook intothe comer, and take a "leap of faith" basedon non-facts. Thus non-facts are servingthe purpose formerly monopolized by factsas a foundation for thought and faith.Theology professors have faith in faith

rather than faith in a fact or a person.It is vitally important to realize howdifferent this method of thought is, ascompared to that employed by the proph-ets throughout Holy Scripture. In the Actsof the Apostles,2 Paul is reported to havereasoned with the elders with tears dayand night about matters of faith. He wasready to throw his faith overboard if it didnot comply with the known facts. If thebody of the Lord Je sus Christ could havebeen found after h is death and resurrec-tion, that one fact would have abolished at

one stroke all Christian faith and doctrineforever. For the whole Christian position(faith) turned (and turns) on this oneoutstanding fact—the Lord rose from the



36 Is Tills a God of Love?

His body was transmuted from materialmortality to the supramortal—to immor-tality. The disproving of this one centralfact — the pillar of faith which was at-tested to by more than five hundred livingpeople a t the time Paul wrote of the resur-rection — would have destroyed Christi-anity.

In those days Christians did not ar-rive at their faith by a leap in the dark, butby basing their thought processes — andtherefore their faith — on the fact ofChrist's resurrection. Any other way ofarriving at a real Christian faith standsforever outside the testimony of Scriptureas well as that of living Christians.

The Exasperated StudentI once knew a student who disliked

higher mathematics, yet needed thisknowledge to pass examinations. Aftermany futile attem pts to master a chapterof a rather abstruse aspect of the subjecthe threw the book into the corner of hisroom, muttering that it wasall bunk and




sense to everyone. For others had mas-tered the same contents and extractedmeaning from them. Hie difficulty wastha t the student, being unable to compre-hend the m essage of the abstruse chap-ter, concluded that it was absurd non-sense . His conclusion was, unfortunatelyfor him , wrong.

Camus and others are saying, ineffect the sam e thing—life is absurd andm eaningless— to them . B ut other seriouspeople, although usually the first to admitthatlife'sbookishardtodecipher, confessto having found satisfying solutions to a tleast some of life's problems. And theirconclusions a re based on the facts givenby events of history such a s the resurrec-tion of Christ. And m ore and more prob-lems and seeming paradoxes m ay be re-solved into order by th e careful and logicalapplication of though t

The Age Of Reason

Our much-prized age of reason h asregressed into a n age of non-reason The




The head downwardthe legs upwardhe tum bles into the bottomlessfrom whence he came

like a dish covered with hairlike a four-legged sucking chairlike a deaf echo trunk

half full half empty

the head downwardthe legs upwardhe tum bles into the bottom lessfrom whence he came

Francis Schaeffer com ments: "On thebasis of modem man's methodology,whether expressed in philosophy, art,literature or theology, there can be noother ending than this — m an tumblesinto the bottomless. **

Picasso In Chicago

Several years ago I w as stand ing infront ofth eCivic Center in Chicago where




Picasso, for which the m ayor of Chicagopaid a large sum of money. While I wasdeterm ining from which angles it wouldbe best to photograph this piece of art, awell-mannered Chicagoan quietly askedwhy I w as going to all th is trouble. I said Iwanted to get the effect and meaning inreal life faithfully reproduced on film. His

answ er was quite interesting. He said th a tsince in his opinion the work carried andexpressed no com municable meaning inreal life, it w as a w aste of time and goodfilm to try and reproduce it in a photo

Atheistic Clergymen

Picasso again dem onstrates the ten-dency of m odern art to detach itself fromth e realities and facts of m odem life and,in doing so, to lose meaning for manypeople. Theology, the proverbial laggardin modem intellectual activity, has fol-lowed philosophy, a rt and m usic, albeit a ta distance of som e years.

I spoke to a young German clergymanrecently ju s t before h e w as to conduct a




he informed me that he, as a pastor,believed that there was no God behind theuniverse, although he would not yet dareto say so openly in his church. He believedin an atheistic theology. Theology beingthe science of the study of divinity or God,we have arrived at the position of a pastorstudying the science of no-God, which we

may equate to nothingness, for a god thatdoes not exist is nothing. So the conclu-sion was that he had spent seven yearsstudying nothingness I pointed out thisrather elementary fact to him. He re-treated in some confusion, saying that Ihad misunderstood him. He did not say,he explained, that he believed in an athe-istic theology, but rather in an a-theistic

theology. This was quite different he said,for it meant that he could continue in histheology without God— that is, a-theisti-cally rather than atheistically One won-

ders what sort of a shepherd of his flocksuch a young man will make when he hasto comfort the dying and lay hands on thesick and those wracked with pain.




But the use of a non-rationality, a lie, tokeep a man rational and happy will suretydestroy the very basis of rationality

No, if rational man is to remain ratio-

nal, he must use "reaT fact to find somemeaning for all the apparent chaos andmeaninglessness which surround him.How can he rationally explain a beautiful

young mother dying of cancer while herchild is being bom? How can he avoiddespair on seeing men, women and chil-dren mutilated by war, hunger and pesti-lence?'Iriese are realities. Camus shruggedhis shoulders at such sights, sensitive ashe was, and said thatthe world and life aremeaningless jokes — absurd.

Jesus Christ saw similar suffering

and spoke of the beggar Lazarus coveredwith sores and tying at the rich man's gate.He had mercy and compassion on thebeggar. But he did not leave it at that andshrug it all off, just as if life and Lazaruswere meaningless victims of a harsh, ab-surd and cruel world. He interpretedLazarus' apparently meaningless suffer-



4 4 Is This a God of Love?

ing— and the rich man's riches too—andtold us in no uncertain terms in Luke16:20-25 what they m ea nt

But today's teachers of Christianity

have not given convincing answers to themodern "meaningless" theorists, eventhough Christ's interpretation of theproblem is on hand ifthey care to read anddigestitThefactis, ofcourse, that Christ'sinterpretation of Lazarus' suffering and ofother problems involving suffering is notgenerally accepted today. The real reasonfor the unwillingness to accept h is inter-

pretation is coupled with an unwilling-ness to accept the full fact and impact ofresurrection as evidenced in Christ's ownbody. If we really believed in Christ's and

our own resurrection a s unshakable facts,we wouldn'thave the slightest difficulty inaccepting Christ's interpretation of the"mystery" or the apparent "meaningless-ness" of Lazarus' suffering. We have be-come so used to equating non-fact withfact that we find it difficult to follow rigidlythe logical consequences of believing in areal fact For in Lazarus' case the intro




duction of one overlooked fact, namely,personal resurrection, reduced the hope-lessness and meaninglessness of his suf-ferings to meaningfulness.

Christ, as he explained Lazarus* case,kept steadily before him the fact of per-sonal resurrection. To the humanist by-stander, tied up in Huxley's idea about

"unitary existence,** Lazarus as he laythere full of sores was a senseless cruelty,an example of callous torture of innocenthumanity. But if the promise of recom-pense and correction — actually, themigjity recompense of resurrection— is afact, then, of course, meaninglessnessresolves itself to meaning. For surely, if ashort term of suffering is the method bywhich eternal non-suffering or bliss is tobe attained, then Lazarus was in for abargain— to put it mildly—and reason-ableness is restored to apparent unrea-

sonableness.Whatmodern philosophers have beenbusy doing — indeed philosophers of alltime have practiced the same art — is



46 Is Ttüs a God of Love?

th e sad case of th is suffering world, factsgiven u s by God himself to enable u s tohandle th e problem intellectually. J u s t a sthe addition of an overlooked fact (resur-

rection) brought meaning into the m ean-inglessness in th e case of Lazarus' suffer-ing, so th e removal of some fact will reduceit from rationality and m eaning to irratio-nality and m eaninglessness. We interpretand diagnose on the basis of all th e factsof a case , tha t is, we appoint m eaning inthe light of all relevant facts. But, removethe facts, even the revealed facts of theBible, and meaninglessness and inabilityto diagnose the case m u s t result becausethe resulting picture is incomplete.

Man Cannot l i v e W ithout RationalityIt is obviously use less to argue rea-

sonably with anyone who does not believein meaning, and, therefore, in reason.

Many modem theologians and philoso-phers are in ju s t this position. But this isnot the case with a majority of the youngergeneration. Young people, perhaps firm




that they cannot help falling in love withone another, ju st as their forefathers did.Girls are still pretty and boys still at-tracted to their beauty ofbody and psyche.

Tliey become aware that the remarkablefact of falling in love with each other, inspite of what they have learned about theabsurdity of everything, is not so absurd.

Love is a new, hitherto neglected fact andit transforms their lives, giving them pur-pose where they had imagined there wasnone. The addition of one fact — humanlove is a fact and not a non-fact—to theirlives has resolved some of life's meaning-lessness to meaning.

The fact of love had been overlooked,but now it m ust be taken into account in

the formula for life, ju st as in the case ofLazarus the resurrection completely al-tered the equation. The fact of love bringsnew rationality and new meaning, just asother facts — beauty in nature, order inthe biological cell, chemical laws in bio-chemistry and electromagnetic laws in




valency help u s to see order where previ-ously, without knowledge of these facts,m eaninglessness reigned.

Is There A Place For "Blind Faith**?Som eone will be sure to object to this

kind of presentation, saying t h a t after all,the heavy em phasis on reason and ratio-

nality excludes the exercise of real faith a sthe evidence of things no t seen b u t hopedfor.

This kind of objection would be validif one believed tha t reason is faith. B ut wehave not said that. We have said thatevidence and facts should lead to faithand that non-facts should not. To buildfaith on a sound basis we must have

sound facts and not flabby non-facts ormeaninglessness. When the facts of acase have been established beyond doubt,for example, th a t Christ did, a s an histori-

cal fact rise from the dead on the thirdday, th en we can sta rt building faith ontha t fact. For, by being resurrected afterdeath , a s he had promised before dying,




ordinary mortals do not possess about theafter-death state. In feet the predictedand fulfilled resurrection proves that hehad divine foreknowledge, and his wordsbore the weight attributable to divinity. Ifhis words on resurrection have thus beenproved to be divine, then surety what hesays about me, my death and m y resur-

rection by his power will be divine. Thesedivine facts and words allow me sufficientbasis on which to build my faith by trust-ing in and acting on them. This kind ofbuilding on divine evidence and facts, thistrusting of them and their author, isnothing less and nothing more than bib-lical faith.

All that th is really means is that we

are objecting to "blind" faith— leaps in thedark. I am well aware that at times I haveno facts or evidence to build upon —probably as Lazarus had no evidence as

he lay in misery. I am completely at sea inregard to faith and belief in those difficultsituations when I do not know where I amnor what I should do or think. And I am




But it is when I am in such deepwaters that I take a new look at the factsof divine illumination, help and guidancewhich I have previously experienced.

Looking back, I see how God has kept hisgood hand over me, even in allowingapparent catastrophes. Recallingpast factsand evidence, Ibasemyfaithforthefutureon them and so reestablish trust for thepresent where I cannot yet see the neededevidence. But I cannot base trust onnothing, meaninglessness or nothingness.I cannot leap in the dark. I trusted him in

the past; he helped. Is that not fact andevidence that the same will be true of thepresent and the future, even in ultimatecatastrophe? These facts strengthen me

to trust him, the great personal Fact, now,where I see no evidence. Such faith is byno m eans blind. It is based on a hindsightexperience of him, on facts and on reason.On this basis we treat the problem ofsuffering.



51

Chapter mThe Atheistic AgnosticPositions

Are there any really irreconcilableintellectual difficulties involved in believ-ing in God, or are they only imaginary

when carefully examined? I don't believethe ancients were on a lower intellectualplane than we m odem s. Even though wehave excelled them in technology, we seeno evidence of intellectual lethargy ontheir part Yet perhaps a considerablepercentage of them believed that the uni-verse showed God's handiwork, whereas

d d




This difference in approach is not inany way a reflection on the total intellec-tual capacity of either the modem s or theancients. Rather, it is a reflection of theincreasing m ass of knowledge with whichevery human being in every succeedinggeneration has to contend. An ancientcould have been a master of all that was

then known in the combined fields ofphysics, chemistry, mathematics, geom-etry, medicine, biology and algebra. Todaythe m ass of knowledge is so great that nohuman brain can possibly cope with evena fraction of it. Therefore, a fragmentationof knowledge has occurred. But this mas-sive increase h as tended to take place inthe watertight compartments of the vari-ous disciplines into which knowledge hasbecome divided in order to fit the capacityof single brains. The result is that a syn-thesis of all modem knowledge is rapidly

becoming less and less possible. Thisperfectly natural tendency has had somefar-reaching consequences which must



The Atheistic and Agnostic Positions 53

be examined before we consider the ques-tion of the origin of evil, since the twoproblems belong together.

Just over a century ago, Darwin,

Wallace and Huxley propounded the viewthat long time spans and chance reac-tions, coupled with natural selection,would account for all visible living nature

without the necessity of involving thevolition of any divinity. Huxley thought hecould prove this with his appeal to prob-ability laws and his famous six monkeystyping at random for millions of years onsix typewriters. The mathematical for-mulae for the possibility of this view werebandied around and the principle wasaccepted as true. The natural and logical

consequence of the view was that thepostulate of divinity behind nature wasrendered superfluous from a mathematicalpoint of view. Immense time spans pluschance and natural selection would do allthe work hitherto attributed to God. Thusthe world of science became a realm de-pending on chance as a direct result of the

i f h h b li d h i




conclusions were mathematically wellfounded. Thus so called science was be-lieved to have shown that there was noplace for the God-postulate. As we shall

see there is no scientifically founded reasonfor accepting this view.The patient work of scientists simul-

taneously competent in several disciplineshas been necessary to show that Darwin'sand Huxley's basic assumptions werechemically, mathematically and biologi-cally untenable.1 The vastness of today'sscientific knowledge m akes it obvious thatit is a rare scientist who is able to dooriginal work in all these fields simulta-neously. As a result, until recently nosynthesis between the various fields had

been achieved. Instead, water tight com-partmentalization had developed. Biolo-gists were unable to test the mathematicsof the problem in hand and chemistscould not critically assess the biologists'work.

The biologists announced with alldue thunder that they could replace God

ith h d l g ti l




natural selection. But no mathematicianssufficiently versed in chemistry and biol-ogy were forthcoming to assess what thebiologists were shouting about As a re-su lt one discipline, in this case biology,has been building on false chemical, ther-modynamic and mathematical premises.The author has written elsewhere of the

catastrophic development of this kind ofcompartmentalization of science.2

Because, in ancient times, learnedmen possessed a good overall view on lifethey could believe what the apostle Paulsaid about the universe demonstratingthe nature of the Godhead. It agreed withwhat they knew about mathematics andbiology.

What is generally not realized is thatmodem man could believe, as did theancients, that the universe shows God'snature — and still remain within the

bounds of modem scientific knowledge—if his knowledge had not become so greatthat it had to be wrongly compartmental-ized. For when the various compartments




th a t each still speaks one language today,a s it did thousa nds of years ago: tha t "theheavens declare th e glory of God, in spiteof th e mixture of good and bad.3

So we can believe in a good, loving,personal, holy and compassionate Godbehindi ta l l .Butwhataboutevi l?Ishetheauthor ofthat too?Tlie Koran teaches th a t

God m ade "the mischief of creation,** too.4

Is God the author of the mixed picture?

The Gothic Cathedral

Before the Second World War, I oftenvisited the huge and beautiful Gothiccathedral at Cologne on the Rhine inGermany. I used to admire this fine ex-ample ofthe architecture of m any hundredyears ago, with its graceful flying but-tresses, a superb high-domed roof, itsfamous two towers and the medievalstained glass windows.

The more I admired the cathedral, themore I found myself adm iring the archi-tects and m aso ns who had originated thewhole stru ctu re . Over the centuries they




wonder what sort of drawing offices thebuilders had at their disposal and howthey made their blueprints. To imagineth a t such a well-conceived edifice simply

arose without enormous planning effortwould be to invite the just derision ofanyone remotely familiar with the con-struction industry. Even calculations ofthe various strengths of the constructionm aterials had to be m ade with old-fash-ioned arithmetic and not ju s t handed overto a computer. Thus, an almost flawlesswork showed sharply the minds and hands

of its creators. But the picture did notalways rem ain a s clear.

Complicating The Issue

During the war, Cologne sufferedpe rhaps the m ost intensive air bom bard-m ent of any city in Western Europe. Re-portedly, bombs fell on approximately

every two square yards of the entire innercity. Now the cathedral stands almostdirectly in the railway station yard. Co-logne is an important rail center, where




nected with the huge and concentratedRuhr industrial area. Naturally, the alliesbombed the railroad yards on many occa-sions and, not surprisingly, many bombs

missed their mark and destroyed nearbyhousing and property. A number of heavybombs hit the cathedral, causing im-mense damage.

In the fell of 1946 when I returned toGermany for the first time after the war, Iwas greatly dismayed at the sigjit of thecathedral. It seemed symbolic of the restof Europe and her spirit. Almost irrepa-rable damage had been done in five yearsof combat. However, as I approached, thetwo famous towers were still visible throughthe morning m is t

Practically every building in the vicin-ity was razed to the ground; the cathedralalone stood majestically in the midst ofthe carnage. Coming nearer, however, Icould see huge, gaping holes in the sidesof the two towers. The holes revealed themassiveness of the masonry, for any otherbuilding receiving glancing blows from

h high l i b b ld h




collapsed entirely. But the cathedral,though badly damaged, w as not destroyed.Hundreds of tons of concrete and brickshad been used to plug a huge hole high up

in one tower, partially replacing the an-cient masonry which had been blastedaway by an aerial bomb.

The ancient roof was indescribablydamaged. Huge rafters and beam s, oncethe cathedral's glory, hungperilouslydownover the bomb-pocked floor. As the windblew through the wreckage, small bitsand pieces fell to the ground, building upthe piles of rubble. A hole marked theplace where the organ had once pealedout its accompaniment to worship.

This miserable piece of chaos made a

deep impression on me as I stood in thesame place where I had once admired theorder and beauty of the original edifice. Asthose memories of former beauty passedthrough my mind, one idea never evenoccurred to me. Never did I connect thechaos of the formerly beautiful cathedralwith any inefficiency or designed purpose




on the part of the constructing architectsor masons They had not built it for suchmaltreatment

Similarly, I never began to doubt the

existence of the men who designed andconstructed the cathedral simply becauseI could now see so many contradictions intheir handiwork. The place was a ruin.But in its ruination it still bore the marksof design. In fact its design and originalbeauty were even more emphasized insome respects. For the huge gaping holesin the walls revealed the excellent con-struction even better than did the remain-ing undamaged walls. There was no fill orrubbish behind false walls; it was all solidhandiwork built to last for centuries. The

migjity flying buttresses were still there;the graceful Gothic arches were stillstanding. But the solid design which wasbuilt into the parts of the constructionnormally hidden from view, was now laidbare for all to see how well these craftsmenhad done their job.

In summary, even the general ruind h h d (1) th i t d




(2) the excellent work of both architectsand craftsmen. Furthermore, the ruinedstructure itself showed in some ways evenbetter than the intact one the existence

and skill of the originators. In fact, thewhole picture reminded m e ofthe purposeof dissection in learning th e anatom y ofanim als, m en an d p lan ts. In order to seethe order— and beauty— of some aspectsof biology, the destroyed or dissected ani-m al or plant serves be tter than the intac tone. The cathedral had certainly beendissected, and its entrails laid bare .

Inefficient Architects?

Obviously no one was going to accusethe architects and craftsmen of designingand building a ruin. The cathedral hadbeen constructed to last— alm ost forever.Som ething had happened to it which h adnot been planned or even conceived of.

And yet, even in its ruination, it wasgenerally quite easy to distinguish be-tween the unplanned ruin and the ac tualarchitecture. The cathedral at the same




ation— chaos and order mixed up inextri-cably with one another, just as the worldaround u s presents a picture full of goodand evil, beauty and ugliness, order and

chaos, love and hate. No one in his rightmind ought to deny that life as we see it isahopeless hodgepodge of such ingredients.However, we should remember that itwould be ju st as illogical to say that themixed picture of the cathedral provesthere was no architect behind it as to saythat the ruined, mixed picture of life wesee round about u s proves that there is no

God behind it. My professor, rightly seeingthe hodgepodge before him, concludedthat therefore,

1. The edifice of creation has neither

mind or architect behind it. The atheistmaintains that because he sees nothingbut contradictions in nature, thereforethere is no God or mind behind it TheGermans call this a TDenkfehler1, a short-circuit in the logic of thinking. And so it is.But it is one seldom seen through today.

2. No characteristics of a mind be-hind nature can be distinguished be




cause the picture is so mixed. This againis a Denkfehler, because, as we havealready pointed out in the case of theruined cathedral, a s long as any signs oforder have escaped complete destructionin the general ruin, these "broken bits andpieces remaining of the flying buttressesand Gothic arches" will still show whatsort of men planned them. Thus, evenwidely separated little pools of beauty,love, joy, order, healthy bodies and virtuewhich remain in the general hate, war,destruction, chaos and ugliness of the

world of nature in which we live, still pointunflinchingjy to the architect who de-signed and produced it before ruinationset in.

In fact, a s seen in the cathedral, whenchaos replaces order, it can often lay bareand dissect the original order better thancould the intact orderliness of an organ-ism, or unruined nature itself. The study

of cancer cells — a good example of the"ruination" to which living entities caneasily com e— has laid bare many secretsof the healthy intact cell which would




never have been suspected had we hadonly norm al healthy cells under our m i-croscopes.

Summary

Therefore, we can maintain tha t eventhough the creation around u s is certainlya hodgepodge of good and bad, even though

life certainty presents a badly mixed pic-ture, it is still untenable to conclude w ithm y professor tha t this means there is noarchitect behind i t th a t everything arosedue to chance and long time span s. Anylittle pool of love or order in the generalrubble hea p of natu re m ust lead u s to amind or designer behind that pool, nom atter how small and smothered in rubble

it may be. T hus, a syn thesis is possible,and the teaching of Rom ans 1 th a t theuniverse reveals enough of its Maker tobring any logical person to his knees inthankfulness and worship is confirmed.



6 7

Chapter IVThe Origin of Evû

Difficulties of the type discussed inChapter II led Baudelaire, the French arthistorian and poet, to exclaim, "If there isa God, he is the devil " Such a statementis the direct result of believing that manhas always been as he is, good and bad,and was so designed originally.1 This isthe Muslim position.

Theistic evolutionists cannot avoid

the same difficulty when they maintainthat God used evolutionary processes toproduce the world of nature as we see ittoday. If he did, then his methods made




maintains, and he therefore m ust be thedevil as well as God. Everything pivots onwhetherwe believe nature was once "good"and then subsequently ruined, whetherwe believe in the fall of man as laid downin Genesis. By tampering with the struc-tural details of Genesis, we are likely togarble the whole reason for the present

state of man — and the whole plan of hissalvation which will take him out of thepresent disastrous mess. Genesis pre-sents an integral whole on which the totalplan of Scripture is firmly founded.

Let u s return to the cathedral illus-tration of Chapter in . It is superfluous topoint out that all illustrations and analo-gies are imperfect and have their weak-

nesses if pressed too far. Our illustrationof the cathedral is no exception. One of itsimperfections lies in the fact that thearchitects who designed and built thecathedral are long-since dead and there-fore could not prevent the bombing oftheir masterpiece. Then is God dead, too?Was he dead when his masterpiece, na-

b b d



H ie Origin of Evil 69

Today many assume God to be, infact, dead and resolve the question thatway. But this is a doubtful escape exit forseveral reasons. Although it might explain

God's creative work in the past and itssubsequent ruination, it would never ex-plain the present maintenance of natureand creation. No dead God could take care

of that. Christians rightly believe that heis not only the living creator, but also theliving maintainer of nature — and of u s.Byvery definition, the "God is dead" theorywill not fit in here, for maintenance im-plies activity and life.

Trius the question nowbecomes: Whydidn't an almighty God who made, main-tains and presumably loves his master-

piece, creation, prevent its "bombing?"Here the parable of the cathedral can dou s no more service.

People who continually ask the ques-

tion, Why doesn't God stop it?" are oftenthose who don't bother to ask what"stopping it" would entail. Some specificdetails m ust be examined before attempt-




Consider any virtue of which a personis capable; love, kindness, honesty, faith-fulness, chastity, or any of the traits nam edin Galatians 5 will do. Select a virtuewhich pleases u s all— love— and ask thefollowing question: "What is the natu re oflove in particular, and virtue in general?"

Nature Of Love And VirtueThis subject of the n atu re of love and

virtue is vitally important because theChristian way of life m aintains tha t God

himself is love. Christians in the W esternworld often do no t realize the trem endousimport of this statement I have givenother religions, including Islam, somethought, and have studied Islam's HolyBook, th e Koran, which designates Allahas the compassionate, forgiving one. Asfar as I know, nowhere in the Koran doesAllah figure specifically as an embodi-

ment of love. He may threaten, may bemerciful, om nipotent com passionate andom nipresent. He m ay offer the faithful aplace in the gardens of paradise with a s




love never figures in the Koranic "revela-tions" of Allah's nature. A designation ofGod as "love" stands unique in the Bible.

Right in the center, then, of the Chris-

tian position is this virtue we call love. Itmust be of vital importance for that veryreason. Nevertheless, I find myself at anextreme loss when I am asked to rationally

explain anything at all about God's love. Iknow that God so loved the world that hegave his only Son, thatwhoeverbelieves inhim should not perish but have eternallife."3 But God, even though loving, is alsoinfinite. Therefore, he exceeds anythingmy thinking apparatus can handle. So Ido not pretend to be able to plumb thedepths of either his love or character. To

think rationally about that love is farbeyond me.I suspect it is for this reason that

when the Scriptures speak of God and hislove, usually man's love to a woman andvice versa is used to drive home the pointat an anthropomorphic level. It is likeusing real-life illustrations to clarify ab-

d b i f h i




non-scientific people. Thus, God providesinformation on himself and his love in ahuman setting in order to really commu-nicate with u s. The information we thus

obtain by cutting down the high voltageof God's love" to the "low voltage of humanlove,* we will then apply to our mainproblem.

The first question in analyzing hu-man love is: "How did this love betweenbride and bridegroom originate?" Thehistoryofmostsuch relationships providesthe answer. The young man met theyoung girl one day and sooner or laterbegan to feel attracted to her. The at-traction is better experienced than de-scribed. Very often the girl feels attracted

to him at the same time, although shemight at this stage be more hesitant todisplay her feelings. Often, he begins theaction side of the relationship by lookingfor suitable ways to court her. B u t untilwooing is begun, the whole affair is lop-sided. A one-sided relationship in which




attentions are not returned can be ex-tremely painful. Certainly it is neitherhappy nor satisfying to either party.

At this stage there is one burningquestion which every prospective bride-groom would like answered as soon aspossible: "Does she love me?" Is m y attrac-tion to her reciprocated?" One purpose of

courtship is to give the girl a chance tosettle the question in her own mind. For,once she notices the man's attentionsand, therefore, attraction towards her,she has to make a momentous decision: Can I return his affection?" If she thinksthat she may do so, then she must decideif she can love him. Here she m ust rely onher own heart as well as on her common

sense and the principles of life to whichshe adheres. After due consideration, shemay decide she does. An understanding isreached between the two. Aradiant couple

emerges, and great are the happiness andjoy of two hearts that have entrustedthemselves to one another in mutual loveand faithfulness.




In order to answer the question whya God of love just doesn't "stop it* we mustanalyze this process of falling in love moreclosely in order to draw some reason out

of what often appears to be an entirelyunreasonable happening.First the young man must court the

girl of his choice. She will be unhappy if hedoesn't and he will be unmanly if hedoesn't know howl Now, courtship is avery fine art besides being a very neces-sary one. Some of our finest poetry, musicand art have arisen as its by-productsMost important perhaps, is that it is a so-called gentle art, which brings us to acardinal point in our analysis.

Tlie moment force takes the place of

wooing, both love and thejoy of love cease.They are often replaced by hate, recrimi-nations and misery. For the whole struc-ture of love is built on absolute mutualconsent and respect for the character andsovereignty of the loved one. In otherwords, the structure on which humanlove between a bride and a bridegroom issquarely based is freedom to love




Most civilized societies recognize pre-cisely this structure in their marriageservices. The two persons intending m ar-riage are bo th given the public opportu-

nity of m aking a free-will consent in say-ing "I will" before the assem bled congrega-tion. Old Testament cultures stand forexactly the sam e principle, a s the follow-ing well-known story em phasizes.

Rebekah

When Eliezer, Abraham's servant,asked Rebekah to become Isaac's wife(Gen. 24), he became so assured th a t h ehad found God's choice for his master'sson th a t he was ready to cut com ers in theprocess of taking the bride home. The

evidence th a t Rebekah was God's choicewas so overwhelming that he wanted tospeed things up, intending to take offimmediately with the girl and forget about

all the formalities or cerem onies.However, Rebekah's relatives sawimmediately that this was no basis formarriage, even though the Lord might be




couples saw th is point too, instead of ju s tstarting to live together with no ado orceremonies. It is to emphasize the neces-sity of m utu al public consent before loveand lifelong married joy, th e greatest rela-tionship in ou r earthly life, th a t RebekarTsrelatives got together and said tha t eventhough God might be in it all, Rebekah

must first be publicly questioned on them atter . She had to give her own decisionand opinion before they would let her go toIsaac. So they called her in before thefamily and their friends to ask whethershe wanted Isaac. Only after she hadgiven public consent based on her ownfree-will decision, did they agree to mar-riage. They knew th a t no o ther basis w as

good enough, even though it was obvi-ously God's will even without such publicdecision-making.

The Am non And Taxnar Affair

Thus , the first po int arising out of thisanalysis of th e basis of bride-bridegroom



Tlie Origin of Evil 77

relationships and love is that such apartnership is based firmly on publicmutual consent or free will.

The second point deals with the con-

sequences of neglecting the above point.The shocking ulove affair" between Amnonand Tamar (2 Sam. 13) illustrates thisdanger in a crass way. Amnon fell madlyin love with the king's beautiful daughterTamar. He was so infatuated with the fairgirl that he just could not wait to woo herand win her consent. By guile, Amnonarranged to be alone with the girl. Feign-ing sickness, he received the king's per-mission for Tamar to come and cook forhim in his apartment Having got rid ofeveryone else, he proceeded to force the

poor girl because hewas so madly "in love"with her. "Love" that cannot wait to woo isabnormal. It often metamorphoses beforeour eyes into lust**

The consequence of this haste andtrickery was that Amnon*s "love** turned ina twinkling into hate for her. The eventualresult was murder, for her relatives hadA d d l t f hi b t lit



78 Is TTiis a God of Love?

and treachery. Tam ar suffered heartbreakand "remained desolate in her father'shouse" (2 Sam . 13:20).

Free ChoiceIn order to love in th is sense — not

merely physical un ion , which can resultfrom lu s t— w e m ust experience the m u-tual attraction and union of body, souland spirit in an exclusive personal rela-tionship.

If the basis of m utual consent in the

love relationship is removed, if there is n ofreedom to love, if freedom is replaced byforce, then all possibility of loving is re-moved. Love can be replaced then by itsopposite — ha te . This implies, of course,the further step of logic: W here there istru e freedom to love, there is also freedomnot to love. If th is freedom to say "no" werenot really present, there would ipso facto

be no freedom to say "yes" and to love. Theability to say "no" m ust be ju s t as genuineas the ability to say "yes" if tru e m utualconsent is to be achieved as a basis for




As we have seen, the Bible teachesthat God himself is love, and his love isoften likened to the bride-bridegroom re-lationship. Our third conclusion is that, if

his love to u s is to be compared in someway with our human nuptial love, thenthe principles governing the two loves canbe expected to be comparable in someways. We should expect God, on thisbasis, to be the grand wooer. That beingthe case, we should expect him to beawaiting our response to his wooing. Toreceive and experience his love we shouldexpect the mutual-consent basis to de-cide everything — my consent to him inanswer to his "attraction to and love for"me.

Thus, we conclude that if God is lovein th is sense of the word, he will be lookingfor answering love from me. Love is onlysatisfied if it is returned. He woos u s bymany means, mainly by having sent hisSon, the Second Person of the Trinity, tojustify u s by dying and being resurrectedfor u s .




Being love, we would no t expect himto dem and or attem pt to force love. Thatwould be a contradiction. The very at-tem pt to do so would destroy the bas is ofall love. As our t rue lover he does every-thing to show the tru e na ture of his love—even to becoming a fellow m an, heir to ourlot a s well a s bearing our sin. J e su s w asserious about h is love — serious even todeath.

The Case Of The Robot

Consider one more vital po in t W hatwould have happened if God had so con-structed man that he could not make atrue free-will decision himself, bu t wasonly capable of autom atically doing God's

will, j u s t a s a lock opens when one tu rnsthe correct key in it? If m an had been soconstructed that, when a certain "button"in his mind was depressed he delivered"love" autom atically, would real love be infact delivered? Of course the answer isnegative. Such a person would be "con-




genitally* devoid of free will and thereforeincapable of love and virtues in any realsense of the word.

None of us would be interested in"loving" the outward form of a partnerwho, every time we touched a certain"button," put chocolate in its mouth orstroked its hair or automatically intonedthe sentence I love you." If such a systemwere conceived or constructed, it wouldhave to be subhuman or machine bynature. For to try to construct it so that itdelivered "virtue" or love" on command

would of necessity m ean that it be devoidof humanity, and therefore personality,and as a result it could deliver nothing ofthe kind. Assume that God, in order to besure of our love and to make sure that wewere "virtuous" in everyway, made u s likemarionettes. He would have taken fromu s the possibility of really exercising ourfree will in order that we might not exer-

cise it wrongly. Wanting to be so sure thatwe loved him and ourfellowmen, he wouldhave made us so that we could not dootherwise. Whenever he pressed abutton,




we would "deliver the goods," ju s t like avendingmachine. Howcould su ch ase tu pinvolve real love in any way?

The Grand RiskThis brings us right up to the great

principle. If God wanted creatures thatrealty loved him and their fellow-beings,

then he was, by the very intrinsic n atu reoflove, obliged to recognize the fact (thoughit sounds strange to us to use suchphraseology an d m aintain th a t God w asforced to do anything — his own moralnature brings with it the consequencetha t he will or m ust ac t according to th a tnature) tha t love an d virtue dem and ab-solute freedom to love and exercise free-dom. Such a necessity lies in the veryst ructu re oflove and, indeed, of any othertrue virtue. Thus, to create the possibilityoflove, God ha d to create free personali-

ties ju s t like himself, for he is love and hem ade u s to love.For God to plan at all for true love

involved th e built-in risk of th e proposed




have built the love-partner so that hewould be congenitally obliged to respondwould have been to destroy the wholepurpose of designing a creation where lovecould reign. God wished— and still wishes— to se t u p a kingdom of love on ea rth andin heaven. But to do so involves the above-outlined risk of the free partners choosing

no t to love, b u t to do the opposite of theirown free will — or even to hate. Thepractical result of being indifferent to orhatingis the same from the divine partner 'spoint of view. For there is no positiveresponse to his love in either case. Andlove aims at a response of love. Thus,either love grows by responding, or it dies.

Almsgiving And The Socialist Sta teExactly the same risk is involved in

planning any and every virtue. Take, forexam ple, the virtue of almsgiving. In Tur-

key one sees hundreds of needy beggars.There are the blind holding certified pho-tographs of their suffering wives and chil-dren needing support. There are those




bodies uncovered so that all who pass bycan see they are not counterfeiting. Thereis the poor man who has h is feet where h isshoulder should be, loudly and slowlyrepeating selected passages from the Ko-ran. There is the old man suffering fromParkinson's Disease, whose saliva con-tinually runs over his poor old dirty face as

he holds out an empty trembling hand allday long. Seeing this misery causes one toexercise compassion and give a coin sothat they can eat a slice of good Turkishbread. Naturally one is convinced thatsomething much more fundamentalshould be done for these thousands ofpeople so representative of suffering hu-manity. But a coin will at least guarantee

that the immediate plague of gnawinghunger will be assuaged.So one gives something to the poor

mother sitting in rags underneath themailbox at the post office, with her week-old, unwashed baby on her ragged lap. Inso doing one exercises a virtue — that ofalmsgiving. The immediate reward is an

f All h f h i '




salvation. The joy on the recipient's facewould be reward enough. To exercise anyvirtue is afree-will operation which bringsjoy to the giver and to the receiver.

If, however, beggars are cared for bytaxes, and the city authorities send me atax bill to help support the poor andneedy, then I m ust pay. It may be a good

thing to organize matters in this way.Many maintain that this method is lessdegrading for the poor and that the bur-den is more equally distributed. I agreewith them in this respect But let u s beclear about one of the overlooked conse-quences.

In paying my taxes which are used tosupport the poor and the needy, I no

longer exercise the virtue I did when I gavethe alms to the pooryoung mother. I mighthave paid about 10 dollars in taxes for thepoor, or I might have given the youngwoman 10 dollars to buy her baby some-thing better than dirty rags. The sum ofmoney involved is irrelevant. In one caseI exercise the virtue of almsgiving (and

bl i ) hil i h h I



86 IsThisaGodofLove?

m ust pay my taxes, grumbling perhapsabout the waste perpetrated by the bu-reaucracy of the tax office, with no con-sequent blessing, even though I may be

perfectly right.In one case I exercise no virtue. In theother case, where I give of my own free willin almsgiving I exercise a virtue— simplybecause I do not have to ac t Therein liesthe difference: forced charity" is no char-ity— and "forced love" is no love. Love andvirtue melt in the grip of force just as icemelts under the pressure of a vice.

If I force my children to be "good"when we are out visiting, they may beoutwardly exemplary — sometimes theyare I am thankful for this, but I recognize

the feet that most parents will be familiarwith — that this "goodness" may not beeven skin deep Force itself, unaided, canmake no one good and virtues tend to fadeaway in its presence.

These considerations disclose one ofthe fatal weaknesses of our increasinglysocialized world. All "charity" and "worksof love" tend to become organized by the




state, which rightly wishes to eliminatethe humiliation to which the poor aresubjected in accepting certain kinds of"charity.** Thejoy and virtue of true charity

and love disappear immediately when theforced tax replaces the free-will offering.The Lord Je su s Christ himself rem arkedth a t it w as more blessed to give th an toreceive, thus emphasizing the "blessed-ness** or happiness accompanying thefree act of giving.

The exercise of any real virtue en-nobles and enriches the character, givingreal joy and radiance to those practicingit.Thus the socialized state often robs itscitizens of the flights of exuberance towhich free exercisers of love an d charity

are heir.George Mutter's Orphanages

Over a century ago in Bristol, En-

gland, George Müller set up his orphanhomes which were run and staffed en-tirely by the free-will offerings and servicesof Christians in sym pathy with hi s aim s.




homes full of the victims of suffering werereal havens of love, joy and rest to thou-sands of orphans. Today many such or-phanages (not Muller's) have been takenover by the state. The state institute isoften merely a matter of rates and taxes,and the person in charge is sometimes acareer person who makes no attempt to be

a "mother" or a "father" to the children.Often the atmosphere of such an institu-tion is as cold and devoid of love as theconcrete bricks of which it was con-structed. Scientists have shown that chil-dren in such institutions die from lack oflove as often as they die from disease.4

The welfare state, in taking over ev-erything to remove a few real abuses, too

often kills love and the other virtues whichmake up the atmosphere of a home. Re-moving the freedom of service, the volun-tary basis, causes love to evaporate. Not

only do the children or inmates of theseinstitutions suffer. The ennobling ofcharacter which the voluntary staff mem-bers would themselves receive by free-will




career people. The more the world losesthis rigjit to freely exercise true charity,the harder, colder and more bitter it mustbecome.

This disastrous effect is seen in thecharacter of most socialized nations. Infact, it is producing just what Hitler pro-duced in Germany by the same means:

de-personalization—people who may dotheir duty, but who will not raise a longerto help close a concentration camp if itinvolves personal risk. Their charactershave not experienced the ennobling,strengthening effect which results fromthe exercise of freedom. Hitler was a livingexample of a man naive enough to attemptto demand and command the love andaffection of his people. He may have real-ized at the end that love evaporates underjust such pressure. The strength ofcharacter necessary to withstand any ty-

rant is not likely to be built in any gen-eration without the ennoblement ofcharacter resulting from long exercise ofthe various human virtues we have dis-




the various vicissitudes of life which oftencomplicate the career of anyone strongenough in will to be ready to suffer for hisown conscience's sake.

The tendency today is to push every-thing onto the community, resulting inprivate character impoverishment. We allknow the person who "doesn't want to get

involved." The second tendency, contin-gent partly on the first, is tobringup everychild to conformity, so that only the will ofthe community and majority counts. Thusthe steel of a private conscience, indepen-dent of conformity to the m ass, does notdevelop. In Hitler's Germany, this wasseen at its extreme development Peoplesaw corpses dropping out of vans coining

from a concentration camps as they passedthrough a big city. But fear had so erodedcharacters that no one did anything — itwas too dangerous to get involved

In Chicago a few years ago I waswalking from the Chicago and Northwest-em Railway Station a s I saw a man in a carliterally plow his way through a group of



TTie Origin of Evil 91

pedestrian crossing with a green ligfit. Heknocked one old lady down, injuring her.I took the license num ber of the car, whichdid not stop, and asked for witnesses.Many young women and men going towork in a neighboring shoe factory hadseen the incident But all backed away,muttering something about not getting

involved. I didn't get a single witness.The idea of the com munity providingfor everyone's need "from the cradle to thegrave" may be excellent from a purelyhum an itarian point of view. But, insofaras it takes away personal initiative, therealization of th e scheme will never pro-vide sterling characters ready and willingto suffer for conscience's sake and tostand alone, if necessary.

The Creation« Seen And U nseen

The Bible reports that when Godcontemplated the creation of the worldsseen and u nseen he wished to constructthem so tha t they reflected his very ownnature and character To do this he had




he had to make man and angels free too.Man was made t in h is image"—that is, asa free personality, ju st as God himself is.For even "his service is perfect freedom**and therefore founded and maintained inlove. Accordingly, the angels who servehim, including their chief Lucifer, thelight-bearer, were given natures capable

of genuine love to their Creator and to-ward their fellows. They were capable ofwooinghis love and being wooed by him sothat the perfect joy of love could reign inthat kingdom. But this very possibilityhad to include the option of rejection.They were no puppets.

The Bible reports, quite as a matter offact, that a large proportion of the unseenhost showed that it really was capable ofthe joy ofthat kingdom of love and— by avery real proof— of rejection Therefore,Lucifer did, in fact, show that he could

love, in that he began, for reasons ofpride,to reject the one perfect lover, h is Creator.Turning his back on Him, who is the solegood, Lucifer became the epitome of the




hateful ones who, in the exercise of theircharacters now turned away from thegood toward the bad and proceeded todestroy the good creation. Men become"devils" by exactly the same process. Ob-viously God, his nature being love, did notimmediately take away all freedom ofaction and choicefromhis creatures, thus

removing the possibility of aretum to love.He allowed them still further freedom ofchoice, which meant in their case, stillfurther destructive activities being per-mitted. If he had taken away this possibil-ity of freedom of choice at the first sign ofrejection of love, he would have destroyedany further possibility of a return to love.So he has given us all a long time offreedom of action, that is, freedom to love,so that the kingdom of love can still beginagain to rule, ifman and angels want it. Tohave "stopped it all" at once by the strong

hand of "dictatorship" would automati-cally have destroyed the very purpose forwhich the Creator had created his uni-verse — in order to set up a kingdom of




Therefore, this very existence of evil ina world created by an almighty, but also aloving God actually illustrates that thegood and the virtue in it are genuinelygood. Love in such a kingdom really is loveand not anything else. Sometimes it istaught that love is a covert form of egoism,etc. Hie state of our fallen world really

shows th is to be impossible — the love ofGod in a world ofblood is genuine enoughDestroyers and haters usually want

company in their activities. So when thechief, Lucifer, the ligjit-bearer, had be-come the destroyer and the hater, heimmediately approached Eve to make herand her husband become a part of hiscompany of destroyers. The pair was also

capable of true love. They possessed truefreedom of choice, as is shown by theactual choice they made. They, too, turnedtheir backs on the good, automaticallybecomingpolarized to the chronically bad.So the whole seen and unseen creation oflove became a creation ofthe wrong choice— the choice which turned its back on the

f ll l i d I l i




open a chance for seen and unseen cre-ation to re tu rn to the ultimate good, Goddid not "stop thebad.wThe free choice w asstill left open, leaving ruination and itscause still intact. Tha t is the reason whyGod allows it — to provide a genuinechance for the return of love in general.

The D ignity Of ManBut does not all this lead to one m ain

conclusion? Does it not all go to show thetruly high esteem in which God holds his

creatures, m an included? It m eans tha tGod really takes our decisions, ourthoughts and our selves seriously. Heeven goes to the lengths of wooing u s tomake our decisions ourselves. He doesnot so construct u s th a t we are puppetswho have all decisions programmed —even though many physical processeswithin the body are pre-programmed.5

True love is, in this respect always thesam e— it always esteems and respects itspartner. It takes th e par tner seriously.

The sam e thoughtalso expresses why




ness of preaching"6 and not by sending, ashe could, mighty angels with h is message.Perhaps they would only succeed in terri-fying poor humanity if they appeared intheir supernal splendor. God's purpose isto win man's simple trust and confidence,to win our devotion and genuine love.Therefore, he uses the natural methods

available to win our decision for him. If heoverawed u s in any way, that might makecraven slaves of us rather than whole-hearted sons. If he were to browbeat u sinto submission, he would only gain whatHitler did — the abject, groveling fear (ifnot secret hatred) of his would-be part-ners.

Thus a God of love avoids like theplague the dictator's methods in dealingwith man, the object of his love, and usesthe lover's better method. It is very funda-mental to see that one cannot terrorize

people into love. Consider the miraclesJesus performed in this light. He neverused a show of divine power in healing tofrighten people into belief. In most cases,




admonished those who had seen the deedor experienced it to keep veiy quiet abouti t Je su s ' warning tell no m an" is almostproverbial in this re sp ec t H ie fact is, Goddoes not wish to force our intelligence orour will to reduce u s to the sta te of cring-ing slaves. He w ants redeemed sons, who,of their own free will, love, respect and

gladly serve him .The Degree Of Man's Freedom

Thus we conclude tha t m an m ust be

free indeed if he is ever to be able to loveindeed. There is a consequence to all thiswhich the reader will have surely notedalready. It is this: Is m an so free th a t Godh as abrogated all authority overhim? Canm an do exactly and precisely as he likes aslong a s he likes so tha t he can be said topossess a totally unfettered freedom in alldirections as far as he himself chooses?

Need he never fear that his Creator willintervene — all in the interests of man'sability to love and exercise virtue?

Although the Bible teaches tha t m an




say no to his Creator's will and plan (thevery state of our poor world shows thatthis is de facto the case), yet it teaches toothat there are limits to that freedom justas there are limits to God's wooing activi-ties of man. These wooing limits, it will beremembered, were founded in God'scounsel from his side and, in time, from

man's side. In the first place, God in hisinscrutability sets a time limit for hiswooing of our free will. Thus it cannot besaid that we have perfect free will to acceptor reject h is wooing at any time. Our freewill interacts with his free will to woo u sand if he chooses to stop the courtingprocess, our free will can do preciselynothing about the newsituation. Hereitis

no longer unfettered. Second, repeatedrejection of the goodness of God's courtingsears the psyche of man, rendering it lessand less receptive. This, too, is a process

we cannot alten it is like the second law ofthermodynamics at work in our inwardman, and our free will cannot alter it.

Tlie same principle applies through-



TTie Origin of Evil 99

man's Creator. Man can say no to hisCreator for a certain time by expressingfree will. But this process of saying no ofour own free will to God interacts with

God's free will and may produce a no fromhis side. For u s dependent creatures thisis the same thing asjudgement superven-ing after grace. We all can turn our backs

on him and run away from him and hisgoodness — until we reach what may belooked upon as the end of our tether. Thetether represents the change in God fromgrace to judgement. How long that maytake in each individual case of God'sdealings is unknown to his creatures.This state of affairs is well seen in the caseof the apostle Paul on the Dam ascus road.

Paul had enjoyed perfect unfettered freewill to rebel against Christ and had doneso very successfully, until evenhe reachedthe end of the tether God had allowed him.Then God intervened severely, blindedhim and reduced him to the dependenceof a child in his helplessness. But even ina drastic intervention of this type, thejudgment of God was mixed with great




mercy and it led to Paul's seeing the graceof God in restricting his field of unfetteredfree will. But perhaps his free will in thestrictest sense of the term wasnottouched.

Perhaps his knowledge was increased.If we do not recognize some definite

limits to our freedom, we risk abrogatingGod's ultimate authority and, indeed,

sovereignty. Yet these limits in no wayalter the conclusions we have drawn aboutthe vital nature of freedom if we are to beable to love — or to rebel. One reason forthis fact is that we ourselves do not knowwhere the limits we are talking about lie.Therefore we are, to all intents and pur-poses, unlimited in our freedom rom ourown perspective. From our own point of

view we are free to a c t wander, rebel orlove as under-sovereigns within a smallarea of God's sovereign kingdom. It is justwithin this area of real unrestricted free-dom that real love and virtue can and dorule in u s. Outside these unseen limits areareas of judgment and no-freedom. Butsince they are unknown to us, they are, for




practical purposes, fictitious for u s andthus of no concern in our decisions torebel or to love.

The very fact that man has neversucceeded in devising a formal proof ofGod's existence shows how completelyGod can and does hide himself and hislimits from our eyes. This being the case,

most men act within the area of their ownlives as completely free agents as far astheir intelligence is concerned.This makestheir decisions in that frame of mindcompletely free will and therefore validfrom the point of view of exercising truevirtue. We conclude, then, that the limitsGod has set for all mankind do not alterour decisive free will and its accompany-ing power of love or rebellion. These verylimits maintain God's sovereignty whileallowing man free agency in the area ofhisown consciousness.

One more thing deserves mention atthis po int the "tether" we have referred toas God's restricting hand on our free willshould not be regarded as something




"length.** It is my belief that the moredevoted a man is to God's will for him, thelonger the tether" will become. That is,the greater will be the radius of freedom ofaction. To stick to our analogy of a tether,we might say that its elasticity dependsupon our will being congruent with hisdivine will. To use the words of the apostle

Paul, to "win Christ" and to attain to hisconfidence in us is the same thing assaying that the more we attain to thewidth, depth and breadth of God's will, themore we attain to his sovereign freedomtoo. As one prayerbook has i t "His serviceis perfect freedom."



103

Chapter VThe Problem qfRebtdLding

Just what would we expect a God oflove to do after his creatures had chosenthe wrong road — turning their backs onthe only good?

The Scriptures say that even beforethe wrong choice had been taken either byman or angels, God, because he is omni-scient knew all about it. He had evendrawn up careful plans in advance to copewith the situation that would arise, eventhough he w as in no way responsible fori t nor did he cause it (cf Rev. 13:8, Eph.1:4 Heb 4:3 1 Pet 1:19-20)




Tills last met— that God, ifhe is God,must obviously have been omniscientwith respect to the fall long before ithappened — has been a stumbling blockto many. Actually, few real intellectualdifficulties are involved in this matter if itis considered carefully.

If I observe a person carefully over a

period of time, I may notice some of hislittle idiosyncrasies. He m ay say "Ah,M forexample, as a prelude to every difficultword he has to pronounce. Or he maytwitch his eyebrows (or his ears) beforerelating a good joke. Gradually I learn topredict just what he is going to do beforehe actually does it. My previous observa-tions allow me to do this with a fairamount of accuracy.

However, my ability to foretell hisactions in no way makes me responsiblefor them when he acts. Similarly, the met

that God was able to foresee what Adamand Eve, the angels and mankind ingeneral, would do, does not necessarilyimplicate him in the sense that it makes




and choices. The only implication is th a tinvolved in h is having given them a glori-ously free choice of action in order tocreate the possibility of their love.

The Problem Of The Consequences

At this point m any will m aintain that,if God saw in advance the chaos, m isery

and suffering which would certainly fol-low the gift of the possibility of love, whydid he proceed with his plans to create.W ashenotrathersadistictohave persistedin these plans, knowing the consequencesin advance?

In principle, the sam e type of ques-tioning arises every day in our own lives,bu t seemingly we don't recognize th is fact.Consider, for example, the decision wem ust m ake on whether to marry. Even themarriage ceremony emphasizes ratherdrastically that the same question is in-

volved, for the clergyman says our mar-riage vows are binding until dea th u s dopart. Surely there is scarcely greater griefthan tha t experienced by a realty devoted




of course, avoid this terrible grief by thesimple expédient of not creating a mar-riage relationship at all Avoid marriageand its love relationship and no grief of

parting by death will ever overtake you.Yet, we rightly go into marriage with

our eyes open. We know that in normalcircumstances, death and all its sorrows

will overtake u s and will separate us.

Mostof us fear this more than we could eversay. In spite of all this we marry, becausewe believe that the joy of love and theennoblement of giving ourselves to an-other in the abandon of devotion even fora day (and forty or fifty years pass like aday) is better than no love at all. It iswritten of Jesus Christ that he endured

the sorrows of death on the cross for thesake of the joys which would result fromthe sorrow. 1 The same principle is involvedhere. The joy of love, even "short" love,because it stems from a God of love,compensates for even the sorrows of acruel death such as that which Jesussuffered for all mankind, and the deathwhich separates all lovers




The enrichment and ennoblement ofthe human character brought about bythe experience of even the brief joy of love,as God intended it to be, compensate for

certain future death, separation andpresent trials. It is a question of balance.Those who know the love of God in Christand those who have experienced a feint

taste of that same quality of love in God-given marriage will confess that it is worththe certain severe sufferingwhich it bringswith it. The principle is that even a little,short-lived love is better than none at all.Thereasonis that evenmortallove changesthe eternal human psyche.

Evidently the Creator, being love per-sonified, thinks this way too, for he did

indeed create u s and the rest of the fallencreation, in spite of the foreseen m ess andseparation.

All the same, many people — includ-ing ourselves sometimes — feel temptedto say "God, forgive God"2 when contem-plating the dire m ess in which the worldfinds itself. Yet if it is true as the Scrip-

3 h l fif i




can and do bring eternal recompense, if itis true that suffering is not necessarilypunitive b u t c anbe remedial a s well, then,relying on the Scriptures, we are able to

accept the anguish, ju s t a s God did whenhe crucified God to rem edy the fall of m an.The next question is: what would we

expect God to do to pull u s out ofthe mire?

The Problem Of God's Answer

Now th a t the fall h a s taken place andsin and anguish are in the world, whatwould we expect God's answer to be? Theansw er we give will depend entirely on ourconception of God's character.

If God is a God of love, then he is ourloved one. W hat would we expect a tru eloved one to do who had been m isunder-stood and rejected? Perhaps the scrip-tural answer is the best one here: Love"suffereth long, and is kind...is not easily

provoked, thinketh no evil... beareth allthings... endureth all things... (love) neverfaileth."4

Surely th a t is the reaction we would



TTie Problem of Rebuilding 109

Love endures all these things in the hopeof ultimate success in the wooing processof love. God saw man's wrong choice andall of its consequences which would leadto chaos and anguish, long before thewrong choice was made. When it didcome, however, we would not expect a realGod of love to impatiently and disgustedly

dismiss and destroy the object of h is love.Many who have difficulties with thesepoints apparently expect God to act like ahard-hearted unforgiving tyrant rather

than a forgiving father. Such an expecta-tion probably arises from the feet thatsuch action is typical of short-fused peoplelike ourselves. B u t then, we are no realexamples of love in being short-fused.

In actual fact we would expect a Godof love to try to salvage what he could outof the carnage. It takes the patience ofgenuine love to set about this process. He

had warned in faithfulness and sternnessof the consequences of the wrong choice— men would surely die of it—but neitherangel nor man heeded. One thing God




wrong choice had been taken , would be toblock the way back to himself by attempt-ing to threaten, cajole or force us back.Force cannot restore anything in the way

of love. That would be to cut off all possi-bility of a way back.

How To Restore Love

Thus , in order to restore love, thererem ains only one way open— the exerciseof further pa tient love. Accordingly, Godexercises long-suffering and patience intrying to win us back freely to love andreason.

Therefore, we should expect the con-sequences of the fall not to be "fire andthunder," b u t rathe r the still small voice"in the attempt to realize the word saidabout God by the apostle: **who desires allmen...to come to the knowledge of thetruth."5

But this attitude of quietness andperseverance can be mistaken for passiv-ity or even inactivity. A large part of theScriptures is devoted to ju s t th is po in t in



Ttie Problem of Rebuilding 111

ent. He is certainly not dead: T h e Lord isnot slack concerning his promise, as somemen count s lackness ; bu t he i slongsufifering toward us , not willing thatany should perish, but that all shouldcometorepentance.6Thismeansjustwhatit says: not all men will repent and cometo a knowledge of the truth. But it con-

firms that God is a God of love andpatience who is ready and willing to receiveall who do turn to him.

The fact, then, that He has waited solong before judging sinful man is, in real-ity, another indication of God's truecharacter — loving-kindness, patience,long-suffering, not being easily provoked.Only by looking at the situation in this

way can I see any explanation of why Godhas not long since exercised generaljudgement on all of us and set up a"puppet state" on earth and in heaven toslavishly and immediately carry out hisevery demand, just as any dictator woulddo if he could, particularly if his will hadbeen thwarted as God's will certainly hasb



112 IsThisaGodofLove?

Thwarting God's Win

Some will feel shocked. Can, then,God's will be thwarted? The fatalistic

Muslims think n o t Is it possible tha t h iswill m ay not be done on ea rth a s it is inheaven? Anyone unsure about this pointshould ask himself whether God plannedany act of sadism that has taken place.W as it his will to kill six or seven millionJews in gas chambers simply becausethey were Jews? Was this not rather,thwarting God's perfect will? And does not

an y other sin also thw art it?Sinning is one way of thwarting his

will. Another way would be to set up adictatorship to "restore order to the cha-

otic creation." If this route to rebuildingcreation were adopted, it would just aseffectively thwart God's real purpose ofsetting up a kingdom of love. Under thepresent circumstances of freedom to dogood or bad, there are still a few peoplewho see the situation as it really is andwho turn to God to be refreshed by hislove even in the midst of the general




love and refreshment is be tter th an nonea t all. If th e Lord had judged immediatelyafter the fall or after any sin, how manywho have since drunk of the water of thewell of life and love would have been lostto him and his kingdom of love for ever?His patience has been rewarded withresponding love which would have beenimpossible if immediate judgment hadsupervened.

King George VI Of England

Astory is told about King George VI ofGreat Britain and how he won Elizabeth.As ayoung m an the future king fell in lovewith the charming young Scottish lady.

After a long time of reflection he pluckedu p his courage and approached her on thesubject although he w as rather shy, es-pecially with the opposite sex. He hadnever been m uch of a lady's m an and w asneither very robust nor strongly m ascu-line in the film-star sense of the word.Moreover, he had a slight speech defect,

hi h dd d t hi diffi lti Hi




The young prince, greatly upset overthis rebuff, asked his mother, Queen Mary,for her advice. The Queen listened sympa-thetically to her son's tale of woe. Then shetold him she just wanted to ask onequestion before advising him. Did he re-ally love Elizabeth only? Would he be ableto find a substitute if Elizabeth proved

reluctant? After a moment's consider-ation, he replied that he would marryElizabeth or no one else. Well then," saidhis mother, th ere is only one way open toyou. Go and ask her again."

So the young prince put his pride inhis pocket, gathered up his remainingcourage, and arranged another interviewwith Elizabeth. He probably stuttered ashe repeated his proposal, rememberingwhat had happened to him the first timeat her hands. She refused him again.

Not knowing what to do then, he

returned to his mother, Q ueen Mary, foradvice. Again she listened quietly— somesay, severely — to the whole story. Sheshowed him every sympathy, and, after




she had one question to ask before shecould advise him. The question was: "Doyou really want her after this rebuff?There are plenty of other young ladiesaround who would be delighted to have aprince as a husband. I myself could showyou some.** But poor George was quiteclear about his feelings. It was Elizabeth

or no one at all. Then," said his mother, in that case there is only one way open toyou. Go and ask her again."

So, after a considerable period of

mental preparation, the young princeapproached the pretty young Scottishlady the third time. In the meantime, shehad noticed how serious the prince was.His love and determination to win her hadindeed been constant She saw that thegreat effort he made in coming the thirdtime, putting h is pride in his pocket dem-onstrated his singleness of purpose. And

she began to recognize something new inherself. His undoubted love toward herwas beginning to kindle an answering firein her own heart. His warmth of love, even




good at courting a young lady's affection,was beginning to warm her affection to-wards him. In short his love was begin-ning to kindle her love, and she began totransmit some of the love she receivedfrom him. She began to feel she was ableto say that she loved and admired him inhis singleness of purpose and constancy.

Thus, the story goes, began one of thereally happy families in the annals of royalhouseholds. This love lasted until theking's death.

Love begets love. But it often has to bevery patient, longsuffering and kind untilthe fire is kindled in the prospectivepartner's heart The Scriptures say thatGod woos in one way or another everyman and woman ever bom . 7 Through thecircumstances of life, or through theScriptures, he quietly goes on as the yearspass, until we begin to return to him some

of the warmth of love which he has for us .For we are told that God has his delightamong the sons of men.8 He loves us,9

indifferent or rejectors though we have




working toward the day when we maybegin to re turn to him the same love, andto delight in his friendship as he willdelight in ours .

Once kindled, this love m ust be regu-larly tended in order to maintain thewarmth of the blaze which God intendsour love to be — warming and refreshing

to both partners, so th a t bo th can rejoicein the happiness which love brings. God islove and we were so constructed in hisimage that we can only flourish whenbathed in such love— breathing it in andgiving it out.

But it would be one-sided to leave thestory here. All love stories do no t end thisway. We must look at one other less

pleasant possibility.

The Final Refusal

There comes a time in every love affair

where a final answer toward the wooerm ust be m ade . This final answer m ay beeither yes or n o. One day the wooed onem aym ake a rejection which, although she




It turns out to be permanent. In the onecase, she may, of course, die. That fin-ishes the wooing of a mortal man— whenimmortality lays hold of the prospectivebride.

Another possibility is that the wooermay cease to woo. The *wooed** is not theonly one who has a free will to accept or

reject the wooer. God as the wooer has afree will too — to stop or to continuewooing according to his infinite wisdom.He can decide how long to woo and be

rejected and also when to stop wooingaltogether. Even this final decision to stopwooing, will, we are told, be made on abasis of love. It will, accordingly, be put offas long as possible.

There is a third and last possibility. Ifthe wooed marries another, then furthercourtship by the first suitor would bethorougjily out of order and outside the

confines of love. The Scriptures say quiteclearly that this state of affairs may bereached in the spiritual sense. There comesa time when a man umarries this world,**




salvation, his "marriage relationship" tohim. His Spirit strives with him no longer.A man's spirit and God's Spirit becomeforever estranged, for man's spirit finally

"marries another," selling itself to thisworld and its rebellion against the MostHigh.

We humans can seldom clearly see

when such a final act takes place. Wecannot determine when God's Spirit givesa man up forever. But that such doesoccur is perfectly clear, even though it isinvisible to man's mortal eye. We can giveourselves entirely over to material thingssuch as a career, money or social stand-ing. It may be the love of things moredefinitely sinful that cuts us off. In ex-

treme cases, we can "sell ourselves to thedevil'' quite consciously— as many Nazisdid when they knowingly cooperated withHitler in liquidating human beings in theinterests of their own promotion withinthe party. Many do the same just aseffectively when they value promotion intheir jobs before promotion in the king-dom of heaven They do not seek "the



Tlie Problem of Rebuilding 121

also speaks. We can be so occupied withthe joys and trials of this life that we, too,do not hear. We, too, can miss the joy andrest of his love by acting as did the He-

brews."For it is impossible to restore again torepentance those who have once beenenlightened, who have tasted the heav-enly gift, and have become partakers ofthe Holy Spirit and have tasted the good-ness of the Word of God and the powers ofthe age to come, if they then commitapostasy, since they crucify the Son of

God on their own account and hold himup to contempt.**12

This warning is to those who have atone time responded to God*s wooing, and

have therefore tasted his goodness, andthen cease to respond. Atime comes whenit is impossible to renew them, for thestriving of God*s Spirit with them ceases.

Another Scripture passage speaks inexactly the same tenor: "For if we sindeliberately after receiving the knowledgeof the truth, there no longer remains asacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of




judgment, and a fieiy fire which will con-sume the adversaries... How much worsepunishm ent do you think will be deservedby the man who has spumed the Son of

God and profaned the blood of the covenantby which he was sanctified, and outragedthe Spirit of grace?.. .It is a fearful thing tofall into the hands of the living God."13

I take this warning for myself, believ-ing that I can leam from all Scripture. Thepoint is, God can and does speak to men;he does woo. If they respond, he allowsthem to taste in this life the things of hiskingdom of love. But his wooing is dy-namic, and it is dependent on our dailyresponse. Continual spurning may end inour "marrying another forever." Then his

wooing stops. Rejecting Gkxfs grace inChrist simply means declaring ourselvesas candidates for no grace, which is thesame thing as being ripe for judgment.

This raises the whole question ofjudgment at the hands of a so-calledloving and gracious God. Can we accept




this? Is all suffering ajudgment? Or mustsuffering and judgment be kept apart inour m inds?



125

Chapter VI uffering Is There AnyReasonable Interpretation?

Resentment Against PurposelessSuffering

Many people as they undergo suffer-ing resent what is happening becausethey can often see no constructive pur-pose behind i t "Senseless" suffering, such

as we see when innocent children aredestroyed or mutilated in war, sickness,plague or famine, makes our anger andimpatience rise. The impatience increases




"senseless** or "random** but apparentlydesigned and calculated, or even "refined,**as is the pain at the root of malaria.

A good example of apparent sadismarises in considering, as did C.S. Lewis,the deafness of a musical genius such asBeethoven.1

An absolute master of the art and

science of sound struck down with stonedeafness Could a greater refinement ofapparent sadism be conceived? Hence theimpatience of many when they merelybegin to consider the problem of suffering.

Yet, on the other hand, anyone con-sideringhimselftobe a Christian is warnedon every side to expect both joy andsuffering as normally as summer and

winter. Both are, according to the Scrip-ture, integral parts of the Christian expe-rience. Being a Christian does not provideexemption from suffering with the rest of

mankind. Rather, there is the promise ofadditional suffering for Christians. Theapostle Paul says explicitly that theChristian must enter the Kingdom not



Suffering: Is There Any 127Reasonable Interpretation?

trials, tribulations and sufferings, beingforsaken of m an. and. apparently by Godtoo. before reaching the final gate of death.2

If God Is Good. Will He Hurt U s?

Lewis p u ts th is very question in an-other light when he writes: "If God's good-ness is inconsistent with his hurting u s .then either God is not good or there is noGod; for, in the only life we know he hu rtsu s beyond our worst fears and beyond allwe can imagine."3 Plainly, this m eans tha tif we believe in God a t all. we m ust believethat itis consistentwith his perfect nature ,kindness and love to hu rt u s and to leaveu s wallowing in our own blood, a s it were,

right u p to the end.Lewis adds a rider to this sta tem entwhich asks, in effect if we accept th a t inthis life God can h ur t u s beyond all thatw ecan imagine, and that this hurting isconsistentwith his goodness, have we anyvalid reasons for believing th a t h e shouldnot, if necessary, continue hurting u s inthe sam e way after th is m ortal life isover?4




should not, if spirits can endure sufferingas m ortal m en do. Numerous passages ofScripture need tobe examined carefiillyinthis connection. Neither Lewis nor we aresuggesting that the torments of hell areuniversal after death The real question iswhether suffering serves any purpose inth is life and in th a t to come.

We can, however, go one step furtherand still rem ain on safe ground. If God h a sgood reasons for hurting us now in thismortal life, he might conceivably, have

equally good reason for continuing thesam e process afterward, in death. Claritywill only come by first asking ourselves,"What do the Scriptures say?" And sec-ond, from our answer to why he h u r ts u snow, what he intends u s to achieve by it inthis life and beyond.

Was Christ Ever In Man's Position?

It is often helpful in dealing with suchquestions to find ou t whether Christ them an w as ever in the sam e position as wei d ff i If h h h




investigation ofwhat suffering achieved inhim will, perhaps, provide the answer asto what it is supposed to achieve in us.

Accordingly, looking at one of themost obvious cases of Christ's suffering—the cross— may help to solve the problem.God the Father remained "passive" whilemillions of Jews, his own people, weregassed in brutal cynicism, just as he"stood passively by," as it were, while mencrucified his own beloved Son.

To make matters worse, the Scrip-

tures say that this brutal act was theculmination of the prophecy that Christwas the Lamb of God slain from thefoundation of the world. Thus, the cruel

cross was an eternally foreseen event —an event which God presided at eternallyin an apparently passive manner in thathe did not stop it. Therefore, the hurting ofthe beloved one must have been consis-tent with God's eternal character. In fact,God himself suffered, for he was in Christas he suffered (2 Cor. 5:19), so God wasactually notjust passive during this event




The Cross And God's Love

This means that if the central doc-trine of the Christian faith, the cross, is

true, then it is obviously consistent withGod's eternal love to h u r t those he lovesbest including himself, even to the pointof w hat we would call barbarism , for thecross is barbaric.

Whichever way we look we find thesame picture in principle. Christ on theeternal cruel cross and a so-called God oflove behind him and, indeed, in him.

Hum anity and biology for millennia "un-der the harrow" too, and yet allegedly,according to the Scriptures, a God of lovebehind us , who is until now entirely pas-

sive at the spectacle. Confronted with th issituation, what Lewis feared was not som uch a loss of belief in God a t all with itsconcom itant victory of pure materialismin him . Tha t solution would have been tooeasy, foritwould have m eant th a t a simpleoverdose of sleepingpills a t any time couldhave gotten him out from "under theharrow" forever Far too simple W hat




worried Lewis was that man and biologymight be trapped, a s it were, in a labora-tory in which God might be the eternalvfvdsectorand we the rats 5 Lewis says thatthe despair in which the Son of God diedwhen he cried ou t "My God, why hastthou forsaken me?1* migjit have been theresult of Christ finding out that the cross

was, in reality, a carefully baited labora-tory trap which sprang at death and fromwhich there was no escape after God hadlured him into it.

Looked at dispassionately, surely evena fallen person like myself, possessingscarcely a trace of the love I attribute to aGod oflove, could not have stood passivelyby while they crucified him — or gassed

millions of Jews. But then, if we take thatview, God must be morally inferior—evento me— which is completely nihilistic. Weshall have to scrap that thought too, for itleads straight to the destruction of allrational thought on the subject.

Of course God is more compassion-ate than I. But then why was he so




relentlessly passive at the cross? Whydoesn't he relent a t the millennia of h u -m an and biological agony?

Hurting In Order To H ealMight the key to the sore problem be

found in the following considerations: Canwe allow th a t to do good there are occa-sions w hen we m u st do tha t which looksas though it were bad? Pu t another way,can we hurt to heal? Obviously we canallow that, for every good surgeon and

dentist does so regularly and routinely. If,every time I flinched, gripped the den tist'schair, or drew back m y head in pain a t therelentless drill, the dentist were to stopand end the torture by filling u p th e stilldirty cavity with amalgam, he would beless th an a good den tis t He would not bebeing good, kind or loving to h is patient ifhe were anything but absolutely unre-

lenting in his thoroughness in inflictingth is therapeu tic suffering. We would all bein trouble again in no time if he did relent.And then all the pain he had inflicted in




He has to be apparently passive to thepain he is causing. Does he seem devoid offeeling? In reality, of course, his passive-ness to suffering, his apparent lack of

feeling and his relentlessness are merelymotivated by common sense and consid-eration for his patient, even though theintolerable pain might persuade me oth-erwise.

For anyone who has undergone amolar root treatment two further pointswill emerge or throw light on this problem.The bacterial infection not only causesexcruciating pain, but the toxins releasedinto the blood will poison the patient tosuch an extent that his very conscious-ness maybecome clouded. He may scarcely

knowwhat he is doing because of the painand poison. Then the dentist begins workwith his awful drill. The pain becomesmore excruciating until the center of in-fection is reached. Then the poison pres-sure is released, and immediate relief isfelt though it is not yet complete. As soon




a s no more poison is being released intoth e blood, th e head begins to clear and thepa in to subside.

First, then, in order to remove theh u r t of decay, sometimes more pain h a s tobe inflicted — worse than th a t of theoriginal sickness. B ut the worst pa in ac tstherapeuticaUy on the first pain and purges

it away. Second, only when the basictrouble begins to be cured does clarity ofthough t return.

The Scriptural Position

Scripture teaches, in essence, pre-cisely th is view on the m eaning of suffer-ing. The fall introduced the "decay" ofhumanity and nature resulting in theh u r t which afflicts u s . To cure th is fester-ing mess, the Bible says a good but re-lentless surgeon is needed to drill and drilluntil reality is too horrible to bear, until

flesh and blood can no longer take it —until we believe we are forsaken by Godand man. The Bible describes in detailboth the setting in of the decay and its




decayed from its original state and be-come, as it were, a lower or decayedspecies, as I have described elsewhere.7

The cure requires radical and drastic

treatmentinvorving, first of all, thereachingof the "focal point of the infection,** andthen the "removal of the deformities causedby decay. " Christ's death and resurrection reached the focal point" of the trouble, asit were. But the "deformities of the decay"have also to be corrected, and that takestime and can be expected to be painful.

One of these "deformities" is con-nected with the "clouding of the intellec-tual and rational processes" which ac-companies the fall. The apostle describedthem in Romans 1 as a "darkening of the

mind" so that the normal logical thoughtprocesses for which we were designedbecome garbled. One of the by-products ofsuffering is seen here. For although suf-fering and toxins may "knock u s silly," theremoval of the latter can bring clarity ofthought. It is a fact that sin darkens themind. The corollary that redemption andholiness enlighten the mind is also tr e




For salvation not only redeem s u s from alost eternity; it also redeems us from alost, clouded, befuddled consciousness a tpresent. By taking away our sin, we be-

come saved for eternity. But we m ust notforget tha t this sam e saving process bringslight and radiance to the heart and theintellect right now, th e process being oneof growth — growth in th is life.

Accurate Surgery Or W holesaleButchery?

Can the skilled, accurately aimedwork of the dentist on a tooth with itsconcomitant pain and healing, be com-pared with the wild, indisdplined, purelydestructive agony which afflicts m uch ofm ankind today? Here again, for any sa t-isfactory answer, we must turn back tothe archetype of all barbarous suffering,namely, the cruel cross.

Is it possible to believe that whenwicked m en, inspired by hatred and jeal-ousy, decided to take Je sus , hold a mocktrial, scourge him, display him all night for




then finally drive iron stakes through hishands and feet raising him on a cross tobleed and suffocate to death — can wereasonably hold th a t such a performancewas the work of a skilled surgeon in hisefforts to cure the world of its disease?

The Exact Therapy Of The Cross

The Christian position is frankly th a tthis was the case: that God, with thebutchery of the cross, did cure the worldof its disease; tha t the cross w as the work

of a skilled surgeon, even though it lookedfrom the human point of view like theexclusively destructive and adventitiouswork of the ribald Roman soldiers andhateful Pharisees. It looks so very m uchlike th is th a t the cross w as considered bythe Greeks to be so unworthy of Divinityth a t it w as a sheer "scandal.'* But the feetis, outward appearances may deceive.

The reasonfor this deception is simple.Outwardly wicked m en pu t him to deathand th a t was all tha t m an ever saw of theprocess. But behind the scenes the great




Christ's suffering. Christ took into hisown body the very **virus" which was at theroot of man's sickness — the turning ofman's back upon the only good one andhis perfect will. The Bible says that thisturning is "sin." It is as though Christ inhis death took the organism of decay (sin)away from me, as well as the toxic prod-

ucts of decay (sins) and allowed the or-ganism to be cultured in his body until itkilled him. A parasite may kill the hostorganism, as when the influenza viruskills the man it lives on as a parasite. Butin killing the host it also kills itself at thesame time. So Christ took on the causativeorganism (sin) together with its toxins(sins) so that mankind could be freedfrom

both by embracing his ac tThis was the secret surgery or therapy

which went on unseen to the human eyewhen they crucified him. Thus, the sense-

lessness of the cross is only superficial —superficial to the uninitiated. Its sense-lessness becomes sense to those who




probe to the bottom of the mystery andfind that he did, in fact bear their sin andsins in his own body on the tree.

Christ at Calvary reversed the pro-cess of rejecting God's known will byturning to, embracing and doing God'sknown will, even though it meant his ownsuffering and death. Man's act in turning

away from God was reversed by Christwhen he embraced God for u s anew withhis will. However, he embraced not onlythe basic cause of the ill — the turningaway — but he took on himself the con-sequences, the "metabolic products," as itwere, of that fatal wrong choice. He tookmy sickness and my sicknesses on him-self. No one knows just how he accom-

plished this, just what mechanism heused. All we know is that we could not doit, for none of u s could die in a valid waybefore God for the sin of another. TheFather gave h is permission and commandto Christ to lay down his life as a ransomfor many. And Christ obediently did ju stthat The man Christ reversed Man'sd b d



140 IsTTiisaGodofLove?

The Scriptures teach one other pointon the meaning of suffering. Hebrews 5:8teaches tha t even the Son of God learnedobedience by the things he suffered. If thesuffering of the dreadful Cross producedpositive results in the Son of God in th isway, perhaps we are justified in thinkingthat even dreadful butchery of this son

m ay not be entirely negative in its effectseven in our own case.

A Less Ugly Way?

This is, I suppose, the legal way oflookingatthetherapyChristaccomplishedfor m e a t th e c ross. As such, it is of vastimportance, providing, as it does, the

basis of salvation from the guilt of sin foreternity. Some will say it is horrible. It is.To think that God could find no othermethod than a bloody cross, cruel ironnails through his hands and feet, beforehe could redeem me from Adam's fatalmistake, fills me with dismay. Surely amore genteel, aesthetically acceptablemethod could have been found for such a




This brings u s to the second point wemust make on this subject. It concernsthe blood, the sweat and the desolation ofthe cross of Calvary, in short, the ugliness

and horror of such a piece of restorativetherapy. The utter cruelty of it shockseven wicked men. Let u s look, then, at thissecond great problem of the cross — its

ugliness.It is written of Christ: In the days ofhis flesh, Jesus offered up prayers andsupplications, with loud cries and tears,to him who was able to save him fromdeath, and he was heard for his godly fear.Although he was a son, he learned obedi-ence through what he suffered; and beingmade perfect he became the source of

eternal salvation to all who obey him."7

This is an almost incredible state-ment for the writer of the letter to theHebrews to have made. The Son of Godhad always been perfect from eternityuntil he came into time at the incarnation.During the incarnation he was withoutsin and therefore still perfect. What the




writer is teaching here will answer ourquestion as to why God chose su chac ru e lmethod of redemptive therapy.

Made PerfectThe process of "being m ade perfecr

referred to here means, in this contextbeing "made m ature ." If a child is perfectin mind and body, there is nothing we cancomplain about. But his perfection as achild needs to grow into the m ature per-fection of an a d u l t This process is one of

growth in body, mind and experience.There is no quick way around it To begenuine, it m ust be gone through experi-mentally.

This is exactly what Christ wentthrough a s a m an. He was perfect from achild onward. But the Bible says he grewin wisdom and statu re — th a t is, hem atu red by his experience as a m an. Eventhough he w as the second Person of theTrinity, h e w as perfected by growing u p asa m an, for he gathered actual experienceof m anhood which he lacked experimen-



Suffering: Is l i iere Any 143Reasonable Interpretation?

knew all about manhood before he be-came a man, because he was omniscient.But now he experienced manhood in thebody — and matured or became experi-enced, and therefore perfected, in it.

Now notice what some of this man-hood experience involved for Christ —somethinghe, as God, had not experienced

as a man before: In the days of his flesh,Jesus offered up prayers and supplica-tions, with loud cries and tears, to himwho was able to save him from death." Itwas the fight between the will to be obe-dient and the terrible reality of a bloodydeath on the tree. Here we have anxiety,anguish and suffering—rightup tobloodysweat — in anticipation of the abyss of

such a death. He matured as a man by theexperience of anguished prayer in faith tohim who could deliver him. We are assuredthat he was heard because of his godlyfear. But he was only saved from death bygoing down through death and thus beingled out of it after tasting it.

The result, then, of this seemingjy




down the legal basis for our salvation, butthe bloody cross showed what sufferingand anguish can do if accepted as Jesu saccepted them. His death was expiatoryfor sin. But the manner ofhis death servedat the same time as a teacher of obedienceto God the Man; it was a maturer, aperfecter of the perfect one. If the Son of

God as man was matured in his experi-ence and learned obedience by i t then wefind yet another secret, hidden element inthe mode of "therapy" God introduced byhis Son to cure the creation of its fatalmalady.

It will be obvious then, that, purelylegally, Christ's bare death — by anymethod— would have secured our salva-tion for eternity. However, itwas, perhaps,not immediately obvious why such ashocking and barbarous route to deathneeded to be taken— a route which made

the cross a scandal to the Greeks and astumbling block to the Jews. No wonderso few of the Greeks or Jews could under-




stand it without the extra informationgiven on the subject of suffering by theNew Tes tam en t— an d by experience too.

Suffering — Not Sense lessThus , the anguish and suflfering of

the cross are not senseless. They arerefined, even though drastic, therapy,hidden to the eyes of the mortal m an ingeneral. But their function teaches uswhy the whole Bible is full of references topain, suflfering and anguish. Every person

who em braces the death of Christ (and h isresurrection) a s his basis for eternal sa l-vation is warned to expect, a s a m atter ofroutine, sufferings of some sort. Christhaving suffered in the flesh, h e is told, iswarning us to arm ourselves with thesame m ind— tha t is, to be on the lookoutfor the squalls of suflfering which certainlyawait the consistent Christian.8 In givingu s salvation, Christ suffered. In acceptingtha t salvation, suflfering will certainly findu s o u t

Further we are told th a t the disciple




matters. 9This means that, in this context,if the perfection or maturation of theMaster could not be effected without theanguish of suffering, neither can thematuration or perfection of the disciple beaccomplished by any other means. TheChristian who thinks he can get throughwithout this sort of perfecting is living in a

fool's paradise. The disciple is not abovehis Master even in learning matters.The NewTestament is full of teaching

of this kind, teaching which is seldomeven touched upon today, for by its verynature it is unpopular to the naturalhuman. Paul the apostle, when writing tothe Philippians, informed them that "Ithas been granted to you that for the sake

of Christ you should not only believe inhim but also suffer for his sake." 10 Surelyit would have been unnecessary for Paulto have told the Philippians that it had

been granted them not only to believe butalso to suffer if just believing withoutsuffering was an ideal state. Clearly, noone wants suffering. B u t in the light oftheb b l l h




did not relish it. He sweated blood inanticipation of it. Yet he endured it as aprivilege in viewof the glory ofthe maturitygained by i t

Hois means, again, that even for u smortals "senseless* suffering need not bepointless. It may be more than the mereadventitious agony produced in a mortal

body of flesh and blood. It can be thegateway to special results in our charac-ters. In any case, it is poor policy to avoidsuffering by disobedience, for Christ em -braced trials and suffered because of obe-dience. It is the Christian path to try tofollow the same policy. For by doing soChrist has been matured and exalted bythe Father to h is right hand. The Father

has committed the entire government ofthe world into Christ's capable hands —hands rendered mature and fit for the jobby being obedient even to letting them bepierced at the cross.

Is it because the fruit of suffering is solittle known in the Western churches thatwe have so few "giants" in the land today?




In the East the total nu m ber of Chris-tians h a s been reduced greatly by suffer-ing. B ut the proportion of "giants," m atureChristians, h a s certainly increased there.

Promised Tribulation

The Bible— both the Old and the NewTestam ent— is crammed with referencesto suffering, anguish, tribulation, grief,trial and affliction.l1 For example, there isth is ra ther neglected text by the apostlePaul: "But whatever gain I had , I counted

a loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed I counteverything as loss because of the su rpass-ing worth of knowing Christ Jesus myLord. For his sake I have suffered the lossof all things, and count them a s refuse, inorder tha t I may gain Christ and be foundin him, not having a righteousness of myown, based on law, but that which isthrough faith in Christ...that I may know

him and the power of his resurrection,and may share his sufferings, becominglike him in his death, th a t if possible I mayattain the resurrection (out)from (among)




The R eason Why

It is clear from the letter to the Ro-mans that Paul knew and experienced

salvation on the basis of a gift of God andnot on the bas is of any works he had done.Nothing he could do could save him fromthe penalty of sin. On the Dam ascus roadhe ha d learned tha t his own works couldnot help him b u t th a t Christ's work couldand did. Why, then, does Paul now insistso much on the value of the work ofsuffering he had done in losing everything

for Christ's sake? "Those losses wouldnever save him .As we read the cited passage carefully

it becom es obvious tha t Paul is referring

to the value of suffering and losses inlearning the surpassing worth of knowingC hris t He is referring to a process whichcan only be described a s one of Christianmaturity or perfection. He suffered theloss of every privilege which he h ad pos-sessed as a well-respected Pharisee inorder to be obedient to Christ. No doubt,th is caused anguish B ut his losses were



Suflfering: Is There Any 151Reasonable Interpretation?

not only abstract. He was whipped, im-prisoned, mishandled, shipwrecked andgenerally maltreated as he went off scour-ing the world for Christ's sake. He couples

these experiences with the greater experi-ence which resulted directly from know-ing the surpassing worth of Christ. Mostof us Western Christians know little ofthis. Is it because we have not sougjit outthe only maturing process known inScripture leading to this knowledge —and to Christ? Paul's obedience, likeChrist's obedience, in suffering while do-ing the will and Word of God is the key tosuch depth of experience.

But more about the maturing pro-cess is to be discovered in Philippians 3.

Christ was exalted to power because hewas fitted for it by the things he obedientlysuffered. Paul says in effect precisely thesame of himself and his own exaltation.For he couples his loss and his sufferingwith a capacity to take part in what hecalls the "out-resurrection" (exanastasis)which he regarded not as a matter ofcourse for every Christian but as that




which depends on Christian maturity. Weall know — as do the Muslims — that allof us, small and great wicked and good,rich and poor, will be resurrected at thegreat day of final judgement to receive thethings done in our bodies. But before theday of general "anastasis" there will be an"exanastasis" of rising of the dead, not in

general, but in a special resurrection. Thiswill be at the time of the return of our Lordin glory to set up his kingdom on earth andreign. Christislookingformenandwomenamong his redeemed who have allowedthemselves to be matured for this highoffice—by means of the same process bywhich he was made fit for it— by anguishand suffering.

Apparently Paul's aim was to acceptthe same type of loss and suffering thathis Master had gone through in order tobecome prepared himself for high office

with Christ All this is based on the free giftof salvation by the blood of Christ. But inbuilding upon this sure basis of free sal-vation, a maturing or a perfection process



154 IsTTiisaGodofLove?

h a s suffered, he is able to help those whoare tempted."14 On th is basis, who couldbe be tter fitted to help m ankind than theSon of Man who has been through thesam e kind of temptation — though farmore acute? This establishes a bond ofconfidence between us and him. He un-derstands because he has experienced

th e fire of anguish . Therefore he can helpu s . Our lot and h is as mortals were oncecongruous. It gives me confidence to-w ards him . If I suffer, I can help those whoare suffering, even as Christ has helpedm e.

Perfection

This leads u s to the third po in t Thefirst point w as th a t Christ died and roseagain to justify and redeem u s , giving u sth e basis for fellowship with the holy God.The second point was tha t h is sufferingsand endurance were the m eans of quali-fication and m aturation for h is exaltationto th e right hand of God the Father. In aparallel m anner the suffering$ of Chris-



Suffering: Is l i iere Any 155Reasonable Interpretation?

high office in h is kingdom. The third pointis also directly concerned with sufferingand its consequences. Peter develops thesubject in saying: "Since therefore Christ

suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves withthe same thought (mind or will), for who-ever has suffered in the flesh has ceasedfrom sin, so as to live the rest of the timein the flesh no longer by human passionsbut by the will of God."15

Peter was referring to "suffering in theflesh," which he says, leads to ceasingfrom sin in the flesh. But the same prin-ciple also applies to matters not directlyconcerned with the flesh, as he also con-firms: For one is approved if, mindful ofGod, he endures pain while suffering un-

justly."16

This simply means that any discom-fort we have to endure because of ourfaithfulness to God's will eventually leadtoourbeing"approved. wInfact, Peter saysthat as Christ suffered the same kind ofdiscomfort for our sakes, so he left u s an




example, that you should follow in hissteps." 17 This, then, is the line of action towhich we "have been called."

Therefore, according to Peter, suffer-ing leads to ceasing from sin and approvalfrom God. Is it then any wonder th a t afterhis death and resurrection, Christ askedthe disciples questions that bring the

whole problem of suffering into focus: Was it not necessary that Christ shouldsuffer these things and enter into hisglory?**18 The Christ should suffer and onthe third day arise from the dead.**19 Thesame topic was the subject of Paul*s three-week long argument with the Jews inThessalonica: "And Paul went in, a s w ashis custom, and for three weeks he arguedwith them from the Scriptures, explainingand proving that it was necessary for theChristtosufferand to rise from the dead.**20

Among other things, suffering made

Christ "approved.**It is generally conceded that Christ'sdeath is basic to the Christian's salvation.But the suffering type of death is not




barbaric for our cultured society to bear.Regardless of our reactions to the awful-ness of death on the cross, God chose it inorder to bring to mankind a full salvation

— not only from the guilt of sin b u t alsofrom its power, not only to save u s frometernal damnation but also to demon-strate to us how to become approved in

the same way that Christ became ap-proved. In fact it was to teach u s how tocease from sin.

Rejoicing In Suffering

Paul su m s it all up : "So we do not loseheart. Though our outer na ture is wastingaway, our inner natu re is being renewedevery day. For th is slight mom entary af-fliction is preparing for us an eternalweight of glory beyond all comparison."21

Clearly, Christ's death and resurrectionare the cornerstones of any salvation th a t

will take u s to heaven. B ut Paul is talkingabout som ething built on the foundationof salvation as a superstructure. It is aneternal, incomparable weight of glory




And it is our suffering, borne in the will ofGod, which m akes u s approved forincom-parable glory, ju s t as afflictions and suf-fering brought approval to Christ after hehad patiently and triumphantly bornethem. Temporary afflictions exchangedfor an incom parable weight of glory Paulconsidered it a bargain. So he acted upon

it immediately

A Possible

Of course , one might say tha t if suf-

feringis so useful and well rewarded in thewill of God, then let u s afflict and scourgeour fellowmen all we can and seek suffer-ing ourselves. We are doing them a favor

by hu rting them or ourselves. This seem sto echo the old argument Let us sinwillfully so tha t grace m ay abound. Let u sseek and provoke suffering God forbidThe dentist does not willfully or wantonlybore holes anywhere and everywhere inour teeth to stop the future possibility ofdecay. God is the surgeon, so let himoperate ju s t where it is necessary He m ay




has promised to punish them for their evilintentions because they afflict others ju stfor the sake ofhurting and killing. Thoughhe uses the same evil for his purposes,

that doesn't give u s the right to sin so thatgrace m ay abound by hurting others orourselves unnecessarily.

To indiscriminately inflict pain is

wanton. Jesus never regarded pain andsuffering as good things in themselves, forhe abolished them by healing on manyoccasions. He also told u s to do the same.The Scripture speaks of death itself as thelast enemy. Pain falls into the same cat-egory. Pain and death entered into theworld by the fall, when man turned hisback upon God. The point is that God

reverses the evils of pain and death toproduce a glorious result — to glorify hisSon and to glorify man when they bothwithstand and endure pain and death indoing h is will. This is how God triumphsover evil — not by "stopping" it, but byusing it to his greater glory.




Gentling Process

A m inister wrote to me on the subjectof the meekness of Jesus, pointing out

that the word meek is often misunder-stood. In the context used in the Serm onon the Mount the word translated by meek really m eans "gentled" or "brokenin" as those terms are applied to horsestrained to work in a harn ess . The ministerrecounted how, as a boy, he had workedon a farm and helped with "gentling"horses, breaking them in for farm work.Later th e horses were often used for pull-ing out tree stumps prior to preparingwasteland for arable purposes.

The un tam ed wild horses were use -

less for doing the skilled work necessaryfor removing tree stum ps. They had to bethoroughly "tamed" before they could workconstructively with other horses in team s.The taming or "gentling" process was aprerequisite for useful work. Once theyhad been submitted to the sometimesharsh process of breaking in, which in-volved punishment as well as rewards




they worked productively for the rest oftheir lives and obviously enjoyed it thor-oughly. As their experience grew, the reinscould be left on their necks and theywould go by themselves from tree stumpto tree stump, assume the correct posi-tion, wait for the chains to be hitched tothe trunk, and then with all their strength

—nipping and nudging one another in theprocess — pull out the stump. If a stumpdid not come up at the first pull they wouldmove to a more favorable angle and tryagain.

Affliction and suffering can work as a"gentling" process, fitting us for God'swork in the present world and the next.Tnis is the true meaning of the word

"meek" as Jesus used it. What if theabysmal suffering of mankind and of na-ture is now being used in God's goodhands to "gentle" us all — even as it

"gentled" his Son? The stakes are highindeed. Suffering makes u s kind to otherswho suflfer. Butwhatif abloody war, a ruleof tyranny is realty working out an incom-

bl h f f ll h h




allow them selves to be "gentled" and dis-ciplined thereby? If th is is so, it would bea fatal blow for the despair and nihilisminto which our generation is so obviouslyfalling. If eternal glory were to result (andthe Bible says it will), then we could, withthe Christians of old, rejoice in sufferingand jubilate with the apostle Paul: "Werejoice in our sufferings, knowing thatsuffering produces endurance, and en-durance produces character, and charac-ter produces hope, and hope does not

disappoint us, because God's love hasbeen poured into our hearts."22

Again, Why All The Barbarism AndCruelty?

Some time ago I had the pleasure ofdiscussing this and related questions witha U.S. Air Force chaplain. We cam e to twom ain conclusions, which, a s we shall seethrow light on th e above problem:

1. We all have som e sort of freedom tochoose am ong the p a th s in life which arem ade available to us B utwe never have




quences of any path we choose. For theseconsequences are the built-in propertiesof the way which we may freely havechosen. For example, though I choose the

way of cheating in examinations, I cannotchoose the consequences of cheating. Theyare built into the way known as cheating.Similarly, I may freely choose to abusedrugs — it's entirely my own choice. But,having chosen this way, I cannot choosethe consequences of drug abuse such asdrug dependence, liver necrosis, deliriumtremens or hallucinations. They may be

built into the path of drug abuse. Thechoice of the way is free, but not itsconsequences.

Man chose and still chooses to turn

his back on the only good — God. Beforedoing this he was automatically part ofparadise, for paradise was everywherethat God was. Having chosen good (God),paradise could not be chosen — it waspart of the way with God, paradise w as built in" it. Of course, paradise includedeternal and abundant life. However, later,in turning his back on God man refused




the way ofparadise and chose the alterna-tive way built into the choice of followingSatan.Thebuilt-in consequences includedsuch matters as pain, sorrow and death.Thus man found that after making hisperfectly free choice for Satan, he auto-matically began to reap the consequencesof this choice.

What can be done about the situa-tion? To get man out from "under theharrow," to pull the tines* out of his fleshnow that they are there is painful too.Piercing flesh hurts in the first place, butso does pulling out the tines.

2. Suffering is not necessarily a judg-ment. Christ has assured us on thatpoint.23 In a way, suffering was a judg-ment — the judgment following a wrongchoice. But curing the consequences ofthe fall is painful too. When we suffer, thepain may be either punitive or curative. It

may also be a mixture of the two. Until weget behind the scenes of the material life,we shall probably never be able to sort outthe two. Nevertheless, both kinds of agony




Importance Of The StakesThere is ju s t one more point to be

m ade in dealing with our problem. Prob-ably few of u s know w hat we really believeuntil we are asked to suffer some inconve-nience or even pain for it. How m uch arewe willing to suffer for what we reallybelieve? Tlie length we go along th a t road

shows the depth of our belief. The Bibleholds up Christ as an example — hesuffered unto death because he totallybelieved in redeeming us. Some, likeFalstaff, run away to fight another day,believing th a t discretion is the better partof valor. Surely such persons have shal-low faith in w hat they fight for

Christ loved his own, right u p to thecruel dea th on the cross. This fact estab-lishes forever his absolute faith in hiscalling to redeem the world. Second, itestablishes the degree of his love toward

those whom he purposes to redeem.Therefore, it is obvious tha t sufferingm ay act a s a sieve or a filter to sift out thelighter elements of love and faith and




fering may show us what we realty dobelieve as compared to what are onlywords and hot air. The little suffering tha tI personally have experienced has cer-

tainty shown me the shallowness of myfaith in many directions. It produces aclarity of thought in these m atte rs whichis vital, for it leads me to repentance a t thesight of my own shallowness in eternalmatters. Therefore, suffering can act asth e filter I personally need to sort out thew heat from the chaff in my own dealingswith God, the good one. Fire m ust sepa-rate the dross from the gold in normalrefining processes. But after enduring thefire, th e gold is pure gold, though it maybeless in volume than before the fiery refin-

ing process. Similarly, strong winds blowaway the chaff and leave the corn.

The J o y Of Relief

In C.S. Lewis* famous Screwtape Let-ters the "Law of Undulation" is used todescribe th e up s and downs to which allh u m a n s are subject If we experience




heights of joy, we shall also experiencedepths of misery. This is a perfectly nor-mal process to which all flesh is heir.

This idea maybe applied to our inter-

pretation of the suffering of mankind. Theperson who has experienced the horrorsof great pain is the most thankful, posi-tively grateful, for any periods in which heexperiences less or no pain. Such joy isunknown to the man who has not experi-enced pain.

The apostle John in the Revelationspeaks of this type of exultation when hedescribes the arrival in heaven of those"who came out of great tribulation." 24 Bythe very contrast that which they hadsuffered made their joy the greater.

It may be legitimately asked why thefall of man should have of necessity broughtthe suffering and death of which the Biblespeaks. One can understand it havingbrought suffering and death to Adam. Butwhy to the rest of the world? It does nothelp much to maintain that Adam was thehead of visible creation which fell and thatit f ll ith hi Th ti d Ad




was not rational as was Adam and there-fore could not possibly bear the guilt thathe, being rational, had to bear.

Our answer to this question really

depends on our conception of the state ofnature before the fall of Adam. When theBible maintains that death and decay didnot exist before Adam's fall, it is reallyintroducing a concept entirety beyond thepower of mortal man today to conceive of.For the idea of no death and decay cu tsclean across our total experience of thelaws of thermodynamics, particularly the

second law. It implies no ageing — noentropy increase. The second law statesthat although the total energy in thecosmos remains constant the amount of

energy available to do useful work in thecosmos is always getting smaller with thepassage of time. As I have pointed outelsewhere, this again brings with it theconcept that chaos, disorder and decayare always on the increase with the pas-sage of time in our total cosmos.25

Illness, decay, suffering and deathcan be regarded as accompanying symp



Suffering: Is liie re Any 169Reasonable Interpretation?

toms of entropy increase. In fact we mea-sure the passage of time itself, in the lastanalysis, by the rate of entropy increase—how fast a dock, atomic or otherwise,

runs down. The corollary holds equallywell that without time there could be noincrease in entropy. The same meaningconveyed by "timelessness" and "no en-tropy increase" could be communicatedby saying that an "eternal*' or changelessstate had been reached.

The creation of Adam, as described inGenesis, corresponds roughly to this ex-ternal state of affairs. For we are intro-duced to him in Genesis not as a growingbaby or as a maturing young man but asan ageless person. Even Eve, produced

from Adam's flesh, w as apparently agelesstoo — she was, at least, no infant whenshe appeared to Adam. In their innocentstate there is no record of their havingchildren, although Eve certainty had thesexual organs of a woman and Adam hadthose of a man. If they lived in a pre-fallworld where no decay, no death and nosecond law ofthennodynamics ruled then




reproduction there was not necessary —and, indeed, would probably have been ananachronism.

A consequence of all this is that aspecies living in a world in which thesecond law did not exist must have beenvastly diflferent from what we would ex-pect today where the second law reigns

supreme. For example, Adam before thefall could walk and talk freely with theEternal, whose infinite dimensions heexperienced as a matter of course. Tracesof this ability are still seen in Moses andsome of the prophets who moved in theeternal realm much more easily than wedo. Christ did, too.

If these considerations concerning

Adam's state before his fall are correctthen everything in that primeval statem ust have been permanent or "eternal*—without time, entropy increase or decay,

as they are in heaven or paradise. If the falltook place in such conditions of eternityand these eternal conditions had remainedafter the fall, this would have meant that




kingdom, thus confirming what we havesaidaboveaboutitssignificance. Of course,the introduction of death and decay tobiology introduced the necessity of re-

production, which did not exist in therealm of the eternal — just as it does notexist in the realms of angels, who areneither married nor given in marriage.

Reproduction is a consequence, at least tosome extent of the introduction of suffer-ing and death.

The undoing of the consequences ofthe fall is best seen in Christ's deed on thecross. On dealing with the cause of the fall,in embracing God's will, Christ in the fleshbecame Christ the immortal man (the lastAdam), rejoicing at the right hand of God.

The undoing of the causes of the fall undidthe consequences of the fall. Man, first ofall in Christ then took on the propertiesand attributes of the original created spe-cies known as man. He could again movein time and eternity with equal facility, asdemonstrated by his meeting with thedisciples on the Emmaus road after his

i Th ( h




opening of paradise) is open to all whowish for it and seek it in the same way thatChrist did.

The conclusion we draw, then, as faras our original question is concerned, isthat time and its concomitant decay, suf-fering and death were introduced to thewhole of Adam's cosmos so as to permit a

way back for Adam's cosmos. If Adam andhis kingdom had remained in eternity,then Adam's sin would have remainedforever "frozen." Seen in this light, thetortures of our present time seem to benecessary mercies consistent with a Godintent on restoring to man and his cosm osa kingdom of love, and intent on restoringto Adam his own image.

The undoing of creation was accom-panied by the introduction of the secondlaw and its concomitant death and decay.This is realty the opposite of a creation and

its concomitant decrease in entropy. Theabolition of the second law, suffering anddeath, is, in reality the same thing as re-creation and is spoken of as such in the

l i f h 26



175

Chapter VHPredestination Free Will

No discussion of the implications offree will would ever be complete withoutmentioning the problem of predestinationor "free will." The whole subject is a diffi-cult one and ought to be treated by atheologian rather than a mere scientist.However, th isbookhas argued very heavilyfrom the stand point of free will, so it couldbe deemed biased, perhaps even tenden-

tious, if we fail to mention that the so-called opposite doctrine of predestinationor "no free will" does play an im portantrole too. This w as emphasized by Calvin,




Can free will exist side by side withpredestination or "no free will** without thetwo concepts mutually canceling one an -other out or producing nonsense? TheScriptures teach that they can and doexist side by side without annihilating oneanother. A comparison of a few texts, a sset ou t in Table 1, will serve to confirm the

above concept:

Passages Teach ing Free Will

Thus it appears that the Scriptures

do teach th at m an is able to say no to God,with all the temporal and eternal conse-quences of such an action. But the sam ecomparison will also show that man isexhorted to say yes to God and can do so .Notice something new here. W hen a m anh as said yes to God he finds th a t he w aspredestined to do so. M an w as no t nec-essarily predestined to say no, althoughJudas was known prophetically as theson ofperdition (foreknowledge). The pointis, m an is exhorted and wooed to say yes.But when he accepts the invitation he



Predestination and Free Will 177

TABLE 1Biblical Predestination

andFreewil l

Passages TeachingFreeWUl

Passages TeachingPredestination

Tor God so loved the"You did no t choose m e

world that he gave his b u t I cho se vo u. . .. Ionly begotten son , th atchose you out of thewhosoever believeth inhim shou ld not perish,but have eternal life"(John 3:16)

Also the following:

M a t . 7:24 10:32-3311:28 12:50

L u k e 6:47 12:8J o h n 4:13 11:2612:46

world"(John 15:16,19)

Also the following:

John 13:18Acts 13:17

1 Cor. 1:27Eph. 1:42Thes . 2 :13



178 IsTîiisaGodofLove?

many more texts convey a similar mean-ing that God'setemal counsel hadforeseen(not determined) the affirmative decision.In the case of Judas there was a foreknownno, and in the case of all Christians apredestined yes which emerges when theylook back on their free-will decision

Such a position of free will existing

happily side by sidewith plain predestina-tion obviously cannotbe handled by simplelogic. From the ordinary human point ofview one concept excludes the other. Aparadox results. Having recognized thisparadoxical situation, we must ask: "Isreality (including the reality of free will or*no free will') intrinsically paradoxical initself, or is it our description of reality

which is at fault?**To decide this point the following

must be considered: Reality is multidi-mensional and probably eternal, whereas

we are three dimensional and strictlytemporal in our present state. Being tem-poral, we use means of communicationwhich are temporal and limited in scope.




apparently limitless scheme of reality interms of a means of communicat ion(language) w hich is high ly restricted, lim-ited, and generally inadequate for thegreat task demanded of it. To formulatereality, including that of free will an d "nofree will," in our strictly limited m ean s ofdescription is like trying to describe a

probability formula so lely in term s of theArabic digits 1=10 with no algebra.To illustrate further, light, a s w e k now

i t is a reality, a fa ct Our eyes appreciateit without any difficulty at all. However,w hen w e are asked to describe the realityof light by m ea n s of com m unication, w estumble upon untold difficulties. For wecan, and do, describe light equally well

either a s corpuscular or a s a wave func-tion. It is, however, perfectly logical to saythat if light is a wave function then it iscertainly not corpuscular in nature. If it i s

corpuscular, then it is not a wave func-tion. The one description excludes theother in term s of norm al logic. Neverthe-less, modem physics teaches that we




must regard light as correctly describedonly in terms of both wave function andcorpuscular concepts.

The area of real difficulty is now delin-eated: Our dilemma with light does not liein the reality and fact of light itself but inour attempted description of the reality oflight in our means of communication. The

complexities of light overload our descrip-tive possibilities, producing apparentparadoxes in the process.

We can try to overcome the apparent

contradiction in our description of light bymaintaining that light is either a wavefunction or a particle simply because itcannot in our logic, be both at the sametime. But if we cut out one description atthe expense of the other apparently para-doxical one, then we fall into overt error.For this one side of our description isinadequate in describing the reality known

as ligjit. The two antipodes are necessaryto describe the whole of light The realparadox lies then in our inadequate lan-guage rather than in the reality, light




Returning to free will and "no freewill," ifwe were to maintain that the fact offree will cu ts out the possibility of predes-tination or uno free wilT simply because, inour view, the two concepts are mutuallyexclusive, then we commit the same typeof error as we would if we maintained thatlight, being a wave function, cannot be

corpuscular. If we go on to insist that freewill is not capable of existing in the pres-ence of predestination, we are committingthe same error we have noted in parallelcircumstances in light theory. The fact isthat both free will and predestinationexpress multidimensional reality. But wein our highly restricted view of realitycannot appreciate the fact that the two are

congruent and not exclusive. To effectsuch a "simplification" is to introduce afalse picture of reality.

Thus, we maintain that free will is a

reality and so is predestination. It is ourlimited means of description which makesthem appear to be mutually exclusive.Reality contains both, and both describe




consequence of this. If free will is a reality,in spite of predestination, then all theconsequences of free will described in thisbook operate in full vigor — in spite ofpredestination which exists alongside it.

Thus, I know that I, of my own freewill, when confronted with Christ chosenot to say no to him. But having said yes

to him, I learned afterwards that my yeswas, in the eternal counsel of God (ulti-mate reality) a foreknown and predestinedyes. W is foreknown b u t as far as Iknow, not predestined in the Bible. Toeliminate either free will or predestinationis to rob reality of one of its aspects whichneeds to be described by these terms. It isimportant to realize the difficulties of de-

scription with regard to infinity and eter-nity — phenomena with which our lan-guage and thinking apparatus both dealinadequately. But, obviously, for the

purposes of this book the one aspect of thetruth, that of free will, had to be empha-sized to clarify the message. But it wouldbe tendentious to try to eliminate the

f f f




exists, as the Scriptures and experiencemaintain it does, then it exists in its fullforce and with all its consequences asoutlined.

It will be obvious from the foregoingthat, if God courts man's free-will deci-sions, he is aiming at influencing him forgood. This activity is entirely legitimate

and does not interfere with our freedom ofaction.The Scriptures teach that there is

more in this question than merely influ-encing our wills for good. There is, work-ing against God's Holy Spirit also a con-trary activity striving to influence man forevil. Just as a personal good one (God)courts our will for good, so a personal evil(Satan) courts u s for ill. The Bible teachesthat m en do not fight only against fleshand blood in this life but also againstspiritual wickedness in "high places.wThe

stark reality of this fact in the struggle forman's will and man's good is underesti-mated in this day when the masses ofpeople really believe neither in God nor




the devil. But a whole book would benecessary to attempt to deal adequatelywith this struggle.



FootnotesChapter I

1. Rom. 1:19-20

Chapter n1. Julian Huxley, ed., The Humanist

2. Acts 17:2, 18:4, 19, 24:25

3. Cited by Franc is Schaefler,p . 34. Cf. Ps. 30:9-11

Chapter m1. A.E. Wilder-Smith. Man's Origin-

Man's Destiny. Bethany Fellowship,Minneapolis, Minn. 55438, U.S.A. and.The Creation of Life. T.W.F.T. Publish-ers, Costa Mesa, Ca., 926282. Ibid.

3 . Ibid.4. The Glorious Koran. Dawood transi..Penguin Classics, New York, 1968. SeealsoProv. 16:6

Chapter IV1. F. Schaeffer, (see above), p. 1002. The Glorious Koran, (see above) p .115. 1673 John 3:16



4. R A. Spitz, The Psychoanalytic Studyof th e Child. Interna tional Universities,New York, 1945, 1:53; 2:1135. A.E. W ilder-Smith, The Creation ofLife (see above)

6. 1 Cor. 1:21

Chapter V1. Heb. 12:22. C.S. Lewis. A Grief Observed.

Seabury, New York, 1961 , p . 253 . 2 Cor. 4:174. 1 Cor. 13:4-85. 1 Tim. 2:46. 2 Pet. 3:9

7. John 1:9; Rom. 1:19-218. Prov. 8:319. John 3:1610. Mat. 6:3311. Heb. 3:7-11

12. Heb. 6:4-613. Heb. 10:26-30

Chapter VI1. C.S. Lewis (see above), p . 31

2. Acts 14:223. C.S. Lewis (see above), p . 254. Ibid., p. 25-265. Ibid.6 Mat 27 :46; cf M ark 15:34; Ps 22:1



Footnotes

7. Heb. 5:7-98. 1 Pet. 4:19. Mat. 10:2410. Phil. 1:2911. M ark 8:31; 9:12; Mat. 17:12; Luke9:22; 17:25; 22 :15 ; 24 :26,46; Acts 3:18;9:16; 17:3; 1 Cor. 12:26; 2 Cor. 1:6;4:17; Acts 26:23 ; 2 Tim. 2:12; Mat. 24 :9;Col. 1:24; 1 Pet. 5:9; 2 Tim. 1:8; Heb.11:25,35; Phil. 3:10; Acts 14:22; Rom .

5:3; 8:35; Gal. 3:4; Phil. 1:29; 2Thes.1:5; H eb. 2:18; 5:8; 1 Pet. 2 :19.21; 3:17-18; 4:1,19.12. Phil. 3:7-1113. 2 Tim. 2:11-12

14. Heb. 2:1815. 1 Pet. 4:1-216. 1 Pet. 2:1917. 1 Pet. 2:2118. Luke 2 4:26

19. Luke 24:2620. Acts 17:2-321 . 2 Cor. 4: 16-1722. Rom. 5:3-523 . Luke 13:4

24. Rev. 7:1425. A.E. W ilder-Smith, M an's Origin,Man's Destiny (see above)26. Rev. 21



Bibliography

Arp, Hans, Fur Theo can Doesburg. De Stljl,1932.

C am us , Albert, Caligula an d Cross Pu rpose.T rans. S tuar t Gilbert, Penguin Books, Lon-don, 1947.

C ruikshan k, Jo hn , Albert Cam us and theLiterature of Revolt. Oxford U. Galaxy Books,New York, 1960.

The Glorious Koran. Dawood trans. Day-break , Penguin Classics, New York, 1968.

Huxley, Ju lian , The H um anist Fram e.M acmillan, New York, 1962.

Lewis, C.S., A Grief Observed. Seabury, NewYork, 1961.



Sartre, J-P ., Les Essa is. Baudelaire Series,Paris.

The Condem ned of Altona. Knopf,N.Y., 1964.Iron in the Soul. Penguin Books,London, 1950.Nausea. Ham ish Hamilton, Lon-don, 1962.The Reprieve. Penguin Books,London, 1945.

Schaeffer, Francis , The God Who Is There.Hodder and Stoughton. London, 1968.

Spitz, R.A., The Psychoanalytic Study of theChild. Internationa l U., New York, 1945.

Wilder-Smith, A.E., The Creation of Life..T.W.F.T. Publishers, C osta Mesa, Ca., USA,92628

Man's Origin. Man's Destiny.Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis,Minn., USA, 54413The Drug Users. Harold ShawPublishers, W heaton, m ., USA,



Other Tit les Availableb y

A. E. Wilder-Smith

TWFT PublishersP.O. Box 8 000

Costa Mesa, Ca. 92628

He Who Thinks Has To BelieveA delightful story of reasoning anddebate concluding that there is aCreator God. $4.99

The Creation of LifeA classic, exposing scientific mater-ialism and concluding that to havean efficient design you m ust have anefficient designer. $7.99

The Natural Sciences Enow Noth-ing of EvolutionUses the Natural Sciences them-selves to show the error of evolu-tionary theory. $6.99



AIDS: Fact w ithou t F ict ionA comprehensive, up-to-date pre-senta tion of the facts a bout th is newplague. Discusses its discovery, itsspread ing about the wor ld , i t smedical effects and the efforts toovercome the disease as well as thepolitics involved. $7 .99

The Scien tific A lterna tive to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary TheoryDr. Wilder-Smith's latest scientificexposé of evo lu t ionary theory.Presents an alternative. Introducesth e *T factor for which evolu tionistshave no answ er. $6 .99

W hy D oe s God Allow I t?If there is a God — w hy does Heperm it all th e violence and sufferingin the world? Sensible an sw ers toquestions that have plagued peoplesince th e beginning of tim e. $2 .99

The Day Nazi Germany DiedAn autobiography by Beate Wilder-Sm ith, Dr. W ilder-Sm ith's wife. Aneyewitness account of life in NaziGerm any and the Russian an d Allied



The AuthorDr A E Wilder-Smith



A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

A. E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England.He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at

Reading University, England, in 1941. During World War 11, hejoined the Research department of ICI in England. After the war,he became Countess of Lisburne Memorial Fellow at theUniversity of London. Subsequently, Dr. Wilder-Smith wasappointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceuticalcompany. Later he was elected to teach Chemotherapy andPharmacology at the Medical School of the University of Genevafor which position he received his "habilitation" (the seniorexamination required for professorial appointments to Europeancon tinental universities). At G eneva , he ear ne d his sec on d

is this a god of love 1991

Documents