No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
From the moment Jesus was hung on the cross, Christians have been compelled to address the fact of evil within God's creation. For the most part we have made the mistake of addressing this reality by logical means. It is not that there are no logical solutions to the apparent contradiction between the fact of evil and an omnipotent and benevolent God. The difficulty is far more fundamental. Logical solutions or answers do not address the fact of sin, evil and suffering in the world. At best, they are innocuous. At worst, they are destructive. For example, a pastor presiding at a funeral may well have an answer or two to the inevitable question raised by the grieving, 'Why did Jack have to die so young?' She might say that the wages of sin are death, and she might even speculate thatjack died young because he was such an accomplished sinner. Moreover, it is at least conceivable that our pastor could be correct in herjudgment!!! Nevertheless, those gathered would be right to be angry if the pastor said such a thing because her answer did not address the issue. Indeed, no answer can. The people gathered do not need answers. They already have biological, psychological and even theological answers. The people longfor presence instead. To be sure, they long for the presence of their departed loved one, but they require the presence of friends, relatives and God. The theodicy issue is addressed by such presence. The theodicy issue does not simply pose a question to be answered. It creates a context in which ministry may happen.
page 210 note 1 From the perspective of philosophy which deals only in possibilities, Woody Allen could be right and God could be an underachiever. The fact remains, however, that if he is correct, Christianity is not. This points out a fact about Christian theology that is seldom recognised. The purpose of Christian theology is to be faithful to the Lordshp of Jesus with the mind. Christian theology also contends that only through such faithfulness is it even remotely possible to be correct, but being correct is far less fundamental than faithfulness.
page 211 note 2 This fact may well illustrate the limitations of theology more than anything else, for, sometimes logic, no matter how faithful its source, does not quite address the situation in which we find ourselves. The task then is to keep theology in its proper place. Theology is reflection on the Word of God. It is not to be considered a substitute for the Word of God.
page 211 note 3 Hick, John, Evil and the Cod of Love (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978)Google Scholar.
page 211 note 4 Ibid., p. 82.
page 212 note 5 Augustine, Arelius, The Confessions of St Augustine, Bk. VII, Ch. XIII, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Series I (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), p. 110Google Scholar.
page 212 note 6 Hick, p. 214, 215.
page 212 note 7 Irenaeus, , Against Heresies, Bk. IV, Ch. XXXVIII.1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), p. 521Google Scholar.
page 213 note 8 Ibid., p. 256.
page 213 note 9 Ibid., p. 258.
page 214 note 10 Certainly the genocides of the twentieth century have challenged Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies far more fundamentally than literature can ever do; however, Dostoyevsky's manner of addressing such issues remains possible even in the face of calamities such as these.
page 214 note 11 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, The Brothers Karamazov, translated by Garnett, Constance (New York: New American Library, 1980) p. 218–226Google Scholar.
page 215 note 12 Ibid., p. 226.
page 215 note 13 Bauckham, Richard, ‘Theodicy from Ivan Karamazov to Moltmann’, Modern Theology, 4:1, January 1988, p. 83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar, gives an account of the influence of Ivan's character on people such as Albert Camus, Elie Wiesel and jürgen Moltmann.
page 216 note 14 Dostoyevsky, p. 303.
page 216 note 15 Ibid., p. 306.
page 217 note 16 Ibid., p. 312.
page 217 note 17 Ibid., p. 226.
page 218 note 18 Ibid., p. 313, 314.
page 218 note 19 See ‘An Onion’, Ibid., p. 315–330.
page 218 note 20 Ibid., p. 473ff.
page 218 note 21 Ibid.
page 218 note 22 Ibid., p. 542–547.
page 218 note 23 Ibid., p. 683ff.
page 218 note 24 Ibid., p. 693ff.
page 220 note 25 Ibid., p. 701.
page 220 note 26 Gregg, R. M. and Groh, D., Early Arianism: A View of Salvation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) p. 260–274Google Scholar.
page 221 note 27 Athanasius, St, On the Incarnation, 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, Series II, p. 40.Google Scholar