Recently, John Smulo was kind of enough to interview me about the release of my new book. I’ve reproduced the interview here. But, if you wish, you can check out Part 1 and Part 2 of the interview on John's blog, Smulo Space. Here is the entire interview:
SMULO: In the first of this two-part interview I talk with Carmen DiCello. Carmen is an author, public school teacher, blogger, and adjunct professor at Columbia Evangelical Seminary in Postmodern Studies, Apologetics, and Theology.
Carmen has most recently published Why?: Reflections on the Problem of Evil, which is available through his publisher (Wipf & Stock), and will also be available through Amazon and other bookstores shortly.
I've had the pleasure of reading through the pre-published manuscript, and thoroughly appreciated the way in which he made a complex subject readable, intellectually helpful, and personally practical. I trust you'll get much out of the interview as well.
SMULO: Do you think God allows or uses pain, evil, or suffering to shape us?
DICELLO: Absolutely! We’ve all known people who have experienced some measure of positive change that resulted from having gone through hard times. Indeed, there are instances in Scripture of this soul-shaping activity. Job, Paul, and others gained new perspective through their experiences. The greatest example is Jesus himself, who “learned obedience,” a part of which involved rubbing up against evil.
Still, at least for me, this does not answer all of the questions, and I have sometimes wondered why God didn’t choose a different route in seeking to change us. This, of course, is part of the reason why evil is considered a problem. That God uses evil in this positive way is evident, but why he selected this particular method is somewhat baffling, especially when you consider the more extreme examples of suffering.
This reminds me of an old theological concept called Consequent Absolute Necessity. God did not have to create the world as we find it; however, having chosen this kind of world, there are inevitable (or at least likely) consequences, meaning that certain things are absolutely necessary in this type of world. John Murray, the former Princeton and Westminster theologian, advocated something like this, only as it related to Jesus’ death. (The question they asked was this: Did salvation have to come via the death of the Son of God? Answer: Yes, in the type of world God created, Jesus’ death was needed to save us.)
SMULO: You raise the fact that not all suffering comes from evil in the world. Instead, some suffering we experience comes as the result of bad choices we make. How does God respond to this type of suffering?
DICELLO: Wow, this is a good (and tough) question! Sometimes, it would seem, he responds with dissatisfaction or even anger. Indeed, there are examples in Scripture when the bad choices people make are judged by God. This dimension of God’s prerogative to “come down hard on us” is often absent from postmodern discussions, and I admit that it is an uncomfortable thought. Still, if we are going to approach Scripture with honesty, we cannot ignore this fact. That being said, I also believe that God is the very epitome of compassion and love. Thus, he pleads with us, “feels our pain,” if you will, genuinely desires our betterment, and is concerned for our welfare. A prime example of this would be the time when Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem. He knew all about the bad choices–past, present, and future–and that thought brought him to tears.
SMULO: Though we all experience evil and suffering, we don’t all respond to difficult circumstances in the same manner. You mention that there are a number of different ways that individuals might respond ranging from an intellectual response, to a grief filled response. How is being aware of this important from an apologetic perspective?
DICELLO: Well, I think it should cause us to approach these matters with a lot more humility than we are known for. The modern church often treated (treats) this subject in a simplistic fashion, thinking that all we need to do is demonstrate the evidence for Christian theism and everything will be fine. For numerous reasons, however, this often does not work. The fact is, John, people are different, or at least their life-experiences can be. As a teacher of many years, I know full well that some kids need a firm hand, while others require a more gentle approach. Of course knowing which type of counsel to provide is no easy task, and I absolutely do not have some mapped out program for responding to these matters, but perhaps that’s the point. Our apologetic can never be reduced to a detailed strategy but also requires that we look outside of ourselves for wisdom. God supplies this through many avenues, and sometimes we aren’t listening. The bottom line, though, is that God has seemed to construct the universe in such a way that we are forced to depend on him. Perhaps, this is what James is talking about when he says: “If anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God.” This is something of an invitation to connect with our Maker, and–let’s face it–we can’t help but be better at helping people if we’ve spent time “hanging around” the very embodiment and standard of wisdom.
Back to your original question, we need to engage people with our eyes open and, as best we can, with a desire to truly get to know what individuals are going through. Don’t get me wrong; I think we can provide a measure of help from a distance, that is, without knowing all of the circumstances, etc. But sometimes we simply have to spend more time with people if we are going to offer additional support. Only then will we be able to truly know what type of apologetic works.
SMULO: It’s one thing to respond intellectually to the problem of evil and suffering; it’s another thing to respond to a person’s grief and pain when facing tragedy, death, or suffering. What advice would you give to people who struggle with how to respond appropriately in different situations?
DICELLO: I may have partially answered this already, but here are a few additional thoughts. Bathe your mind in Scripture, and absorb some of the great stories that pertain to a theodicy (e.g., Job, the Thessalonian believers, etc.). These won’t necessarily provide answers, but they do something that may be even more important, for they supply the context within which we can think through these issues. Also, allow genuine concern and personal humility to permeate your discussions. The modern church expected and almost demanded that we approach people with confidence and certainty as we responded to the questions surrounding human suffering. Too often, though, this came across as unfeeling and, frankly, arrogant.
The best response to the question “Why?” is often a great big “I don’t know.” Therefore, one of the most helpful ways to relate to hurting people and their puzzling situations is to join them in their complaints (when appropriate, of course) and to align ourselves with them in genuine and unforced ways. So, when a person is going through hard times, we don’t spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to “defend the faith” (though that has its place) but instead agree (as much as possible) with his/her assessment, acknowledging that we, too, don’t “get it.” God has provided some of the context for thinking through these issues, and he has promised us his presence. But, he has not given us every answer to these often heart-wrenching difficulties. So, we take what we can from what God has revealed, and we go out into the world with faith and humility, unafraid to acknowledge that there is a lot that we don’t understand. Still, from what we do know, we believe that God can (and ultimately will) make sense of these matters. So, we balance knowledge and mystery but all within the sphere of faith.
SMULO: Perhaps the most common—and difficult—question that people pose to Christians revolves around how a good and powerful God can allow evil and suffering in the world. Do you think we normally take this question seriously enough?
DICELLO: Generally, no. The church has often responded by categorizing these matters in a nice and orderly system. Then, we go our merry way, convinced that God has been “protected” and all is well in “faith land” (forgive me if that appears a bit harsh).
The reality, though, is that in our captivation with the certainty of modernity we have failed to recognize that Scripture doesn’t seem to approach theodicy the way we often do. While we are providing answers, the characters of the Bible are complaining. While we are acting like we have solved this dilemma, Scripture is overflowing with examples in which all we can do is ask, “Why?”
Unfortunately, however, in our efforts to avoid doubt, we may have unintentionally cut-off faith, as well. Isn’t it a good thing to inquire of the true God, the good and loving Creator/Savior? Sometimes, in our failure to express dissatisfaction with typical (and sometimes simplistic) theodicies, we have inadvertently neglected the possibility that God might “show up” and provide a theodicy of his own! Sometimes, the “Why’s” we ask are best answered by the One to whom they are ultimately addressed. When we minimize these issues and are too quick to provide pat answers, we interfere with this process.
SMULO: In Why? you quote Brueggemann who says, “At least it is clear that a church that goes on singing ‘happy songs’ in the face of raw reality is doing something very different from what the Bible itself does.” What are your thoughts on this?
DICELLO: I agree! Though a lot of this is well-meaning, it is almost akin to emotional abuse. If tears are required, why do some segments of the church insist on perpetual happiness? Of course we also hurt ourselves if we go in the other direction and fail to recall that “the joy of the Lord is our strength.”
I suppose there is a need for balance. Sometimes we know this intuitively, but the church short-circuits the process with its unquestioned paradigms. After all, who are we to interrupt the church’s efforts to sustain the “there is joy in serving Jesus” mentality? Sometimes, there is pain in serving Jesus. In fact, to be blunt, we probably ought to balance the joy side of things with an additional thought: “it sometimes sucks when serving Jesus.” I don’t mean this, really, but I do think it highlights what the church often neglects to include as a major part of its outlook.
Though the Psalmist had no problem exclaiming his perplexity in the face of trials, the church seems to fear that this response leads inevitably to unbelief. Sometimes, this might be the case. Often, though, our questions actually lead us in a more faith-augmenting direction. Indeed, is it not possible that some of our complaining, directed as it is to God, is in fact an act of deep faith?
SMULO: What suggestions might you give to a local church that is seeking to prepare people to understand evil and suffering intellectually?
DICELLO: Be honest. Talk about these things on a regular basis. Work through them. Don’t despise the harder questions. Accept doubt as a part of the journey of faith. Follow the wisdom of Scripture by embracing the knowledge-mystery paradigm, as I sometimes call it. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us” (Deut. 29:29). Some things can be known, while others will always escape our grasp. A good part of our lives involves the effort to live with this tension.
SMULO: What suggestions might you give to a local church that is seeking to prepare people to live well through evil and suffering?
DICELLO: Part of the response to this is provided above. Beyond that, I would encourage believers to cultivate closeness with likeminded individuals. We need to get to know one another in all times, for we were created for relationships. Regularly connecting with others enables us to experience our joys and pains together, and this is what most of us need most. One more thing: I believe we need to allow people room to explore their own pain; thus we shouldn’t be too quick to criticize. Indeed, by paying attention to the way people mourn, we might pick up valuable lessons.
SMULO: In concluding, how would you summarize your approach to the problem of evil?
DICELLO: It is primarily about locating a paradigm or framework within which we can think through these matters. I believe this framework is located both in Scripture (given to us by God) and in the ever-present God himself (who is depicted in Scripture and speaks there and in the world). The God of Scripture is a revealing-concealing deity. As such he can be understood in one sense, even as he mesmerizes us in another sense. He has revealed enough to fortify faith and has hidden enough to compel recognition that he is far “bigger” than our best conceptions of him. This is the transcendent-immanent theme. God is simultaneously “above us” and “with us.” How these can coexist in the same being is beyond full comprehension, of course. The trick, I think, is to learn to live with the tension (notice how often I’ve used that word Laughing), not allowing either reality to overshadow the other. Thus, or so it seems to me, the whole idea of theodicy is integrally linked with our view of God. Both intellectually and personally, both theoretically and practically, we need to approach the mystery of evil from within the context of the (even larger) mystery of the transcendent-immanent God.
SMULO: Carmen, thanks for your very helpful thoughts on this topic. I’m sure that, like me, everyone who reads this will have taken a number of things away to help them with this difficult question—“Why?”
DICELLO: Thanks, John, for allowing me to interact with you on some of these important subjects. My hope is that the hard questions of life will be met with appropriate wisdom and faith, and that our journey together will be enlivened as we connect (and encourage others to connect) with the approachable yet equally mysterious God of love.
SMULO: In the first of this two-part interview I talk with Carmen DiCello. Carmen is an author, public school teacher, blogger, and adjunct professor at Columbia Evangelical Seminary in Postmodern Studies, Apologetics, and Theology.
Carmen has most recently published Why?: Reflections on the Problem of Evil, which is available through his publisher (Wipf & Stock), and will also be available through Amazon and other bookstores shortly.
I've had the pleasure of reading through the pre-published manuscript, and thoroughly appreciated the way in which he made a complex subject readable, intellectually helpful, and personally practical. I trust you'll get much out of the interview as well.
SMULO: Do you think God allows or uses pain, evil, or suffering to shape us?
DICELLO: Absolutely! We’ve all known people who have experienced some measure of positive change that resulted from having gone through hard times. Indeed, there are instances in Scripture of this soul-shaping activity. Job, Paul, and others gained new perspective through their experiences. The greatest example is Jesus himself, who “learned obedience,” a part of which involved rubbing up against evil.
Still, at least for me, this does not answer all of the questions, and I have sometimes wondered why God didn’t choose a different route in seeking to change us. This, of course, is part of the reason why evil is considered a problem. That God uses evil in this positive way is evident, but why he selected this particular method is somewhat baffling, especially when you consider the more extreme examples of suffering.
This reminds me of an old theological concept called Consequent Absolute Necessity. God did not have to create the world as we find it; however, having chosen this kind of world, there are inevitable (or at least likely) consequences, meaning that certain things are absolutely necessary in this type of world. John Murray, the former Princeton and Westminster theologian, advocated something like this, only as it related to Jesus’ death. (The question they asked was this: Did salvation have to come via the death of the Son of God? Answer: Yes, in the type of world God created, Jesus’ death was needed to save us.)
SMULO: You raise the fact that not all suffering comes from evil in the world. Instead, some suffering we experience comes as the result of bad choices we make. How does God respond to this type of suffering?
DICELLO: Wow, this is a good (and tough) question! Sometimes, it would seem, he responds with dissatisfaction or even anger. Indeed, there are examples in Scripture when the bad choices people make are judged by God. This dimension of God’s prerogative to “come down hard on us” is often absent from postmodern discussions, and I admit that it is an uncomfortable thought. Still, if we are going to approach Scripture with honesty, we cannot ignore this fact. That being said, I also believe that God is the very epitome of compassion and love. Thus, he pleads with us, “feels our pain,” if you will, genuinely desires our betterment, and is concerned for our welfare. A prime example of this would be the time when Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem. He knew all about the bad choices–past, present, and future–and that thought brought him to tears.
SMULO: Though we all experience evil and suffering, we don’t all respond to difficult circumstances in the same manner. You mention that there are a number of different ways that individuals might respond ranging from an intellectual response, to a grief filled response. How is being aware of this important from an apologetic perspective?
DICELLO: Well, I think it should cause us to approach these matters with a lot more humility than we are known for. The modern church often treated (treats) this subject in a simplistic fashion, thinking that all we need to do is demonstrate the evidence for Christian theism and everything will be fine. For numerous reasons, however, this often does not work. The fact is, John, people are different, or at least their life-experiences can be. As a teacher of many years, I know full well that some kids need a firm hand, while others require a more gentle approach. Of course knowing which type of counsel to provide is no easy task, and I absolutely do not have some mapped out program for responding to these matters, but perhaps that’s the point. Our apologetic can never be reduced to a detailed strategy but also requires that we look outside of ourselves for wisdom. God supplies this through many avenues, and sometimes we aren’t listening. The bottom line, though, is that God has seemed to construct the universe in such a way that we are forced to depend on him. Perhaps, this is what James is talking about when he says: “If anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God.” This is something of an invitation to connect with our Maker, and–let’s face it–we can’t help but be better at helping people if we’ve spent time “hanging around” the very embodiment and standard of wisdom.
Back to your original question, we need to engage people with our eyes open and, as best we can, with a desire to truly get to know what individuals are going through. Don’t get me wrong; I think we can provide a measure of help from a distance, that is, without knowing all of the circumstances, etc. But sometimes we simply have to spend more time with people if we are going to offer additional support. Only then will we be able to truly know what type of apologetic works.
SMULO: It’s one thing to respond intellectually to the problem of evil and suffering; it’s another thing to respond to a person’s grief and pain when facing tragedy, death, or suffering. What advice would you give to people who struggle with how to respond appropriately in different situations?
DICELLO: I may have partially answered this already, but here are a few additional thoughts. Bathe your mind in Scripture, and absorb some of the great stories that pertain to a theodicy (e.g., Job, the Thessalonian believers, etc.). These won’t necessarily provide answers, but they do something that may be even more important, for they supply the context within which we can think through these issues. Also, allow genuine concern and personal humility to permeate your discussions. The modern church expected and almost demanded that we approach people with confidence and certainty as we responded to the questions surrounding human suffering. Too often, though, this came across as unfeeling and, frankly, arrogant.
The best response to the question “Why?” is often a great big “I don’t know.” Therefore, one of the most helpful ways to relate to hurting people and their puzzling situations is to join them in their complaints (when appropriate, of course) and to align ourselves with them in genuine and unforced ways. So, when a person is going through hard times, we don’t spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to “defend the faith” (though that has its place) but instead agree (as much as possible) with his/her assessment, acknowledging that we, too, don’t “get it.” God has provided some of the context for thinking through these issues, and he has promised us his presence. But, he has not given us every answer to these often heart-wrenching difficulties. So, we take what we can from what God has revealed, and we go out into the world with faith and humility, unafraid to acknowledge that there is a lot that we don’t understand. Still, from what we do know, we believe that God can (and ultimately will) make sense of these matters. So, we balance knowledge and mystery but all within the sphere of faith.
SMULO: Perhaps the most common—and difficult—question that people pose to Christians revolves around how a good and powerful God can allow evil and suffering in the world. Do you think we normally take this question seriously enough?
DICELLO: Generally, no. The church has often responded by categorizing these matters in a nice and orderly system. Then, we go our merry way, convinced that God has been “protected” and all is well in “faith land” (forgive me if that appears a bit harsh).
The reality, though, is that in our captivation with the certainty of modernity we have failed to recognize that Scripture doesn’t seem to approach theodicy the way we often do. While we are providing answers, the characters of the Bible are complaining. While we are acting like we have solved this dilemma, Scripture is overflowing with examples in which all we can do is ask, “Why?”
Unfortunately, however, in our efforts to avoid doubt, we may have unintentionally cut-off faith, as well. Isn’t it a good thing to inquire of the true God, the good and loving Creator/Savior? Sometimes, in our failure to express dissatisfaction with typical (and sometimes simplistic) theodicies, we have inadvertently neglected the possibility that God might “show up” and provide a theodicy of his own! Sometimes, the “Why’s” we ask are best answered by the One to whom they are ultimately addressed. When we minimize these issues and are too quick to provide pat answers, we interfere with this process.
SMULO: In Why? you quote Brueggemann who says, “At least it is clear that a church that goes on singing ‘happy songs’ in the face of raw reality is doing something very different from what the Bible itself does.” What are your thoughts on this?
DICELLO: I agree! Though a lot of this is well-meaning, it is almost akin to emotional abuse. If tears are required, why do some segments of the church insist on perpetual happiness? Of course we also hurt ourselves if we go in the other direction and fail to recall that “the joy of the Lord is our strength.”
I suppose there is a need for balance. Sometimes we know this intuitively, but the church short-circuits the process with its unquestioned paradigms. After all, who are we to interrupt the church’s efforts to sustain the “there is joy in serving Jesus” mentality? Sometimes, there is pain in serving Jesus. In fact, to be blunt, we probably ought to balance the joy side of things with an additional thought: “it sometimes sucks when serving Jesus.” I don’t mean this, really, but I do think it highlights what the church often neglects to include as a major part of its outlook.
Though the Psalmist had no problem exclaiming his perplexity in the face of trials, the church seems to fear that this response leads inevitably to unbelief. Sometimes, this might be the case. Often, though, our questions actually lead us in a more faith-augmenting direction. Indeed, is it not possible that some of our complaining, directed as it is to God, is in fact an act of deep faith?
SMULO: What suggestions might you give to a local church that is seeking to prepare people to understand evil and suffering intellectually?
DICELLO: Be honest. Talk about these things on a regular basis. Work through them. Don’t despise the harder questions. Accept doubt as a part of the journey of faith. Follow the wisdom of Scripture by embracing the knowledge-mystery paradigm, as I sometimes call it. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us” (Deut. 29:29). Some things can be known, while others will always escape our grasp. A good part of our lives involves the effort to live with this tension.
SMULO: What suggestions might you give to a local church that is seeking to prepare people to live well through evil and suffering?
DICELLO: Part of the response to this is provided above. Beyond that, I would encourage believers to cultivate closeness with likeminded individuals. We need to get to know one another in all times, for we were created for relationships. Regularly connecting with others enables us to experience our joys and pains together, and this is what most of us need most. One more thing: I believe we need to allow people room to explore their own pain; thus we shouldn’t be too quick to criticize. Indeed, by paying attention to the way people mourn, we might pick up valuable lessons.
SMULO: In concluding, how would you summarize your approach to the problem of evil?
DICELLO: It is primarily about locating a paradigm or framework within which we can think through these matters. I believe this framework is located both in Scripture (given to us by God) and in the ever-present God himself (who is depicted in Scripture and speaks there and in the world). The God of Scripture is a revealing-concealing deity. As such he can be understood in one sense, even as he mesmerizes us in another sense. He has revealed enough to fortify faith and has hidden enough to compel recognition that he is far “bigger” than our best conceptions of him. This is the transcendent-immanent theme. God is simultaneously “above us” and “with us.” How these can coexist in the same being is beyond full comprehension, of course. The trick, I think, is to learn to live with the tension (notice how often I’ve used that word Laughing), not allowing either reality to overshadow the other. Thus, or so it seems to me, the whole idea of theodicy is integrally linked with our view of God. Both intellectually and personally, both theoretically and practically, we need to approach the mystery of evil from within the context of the (even larger) mystery of the transcendent-immanent God.
SMULO: Carmen, thanks for your very helpful thoughts on this topic. I’m sure that, like me, everyone who reads this will have taken a number of things away to help them with this difficult question—“Why?”
DICELLO: Thanks, John, for allowing me to interact with you on some of these important subjects. My hope is that the hard questions of life will be met with appropriate wisdom and faith, and that our journey together will be enlivened as we connect (and encourage others to connect) with the approachable yet equally mysterious God of love.
2 comments:
Well written article.
Thanks, Chantal! :-)
Carmen
Post a Comment