This post has lots of twists and turns. Be patient with me.
Recently, I asked my closest critic what she thought about my latest post. Her unvarnished reply was: “you think too much. You always seem to be discontent.” Although not a critique of the post’s content, her observation is correct. Some serious introspection is required before I respond. Are my thinking and discontent liabilities or assets? I am still pondering the question, I found some insights by Richard Beck helpful as I ponder.
Thinking
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2012/01/wired-to-suffer-on-theodicy-and.html
There are a lot of people who struggle with God simply because they are tenacious in following the theological thread to the logical and bitter end. A lot of us think our way into faith problems. It’s not that we think too much, just that we insist that people face up to the logical assumptions and consequences of their beliefs.
The empathic side is easy to see. When we see others suffer our hearts go out to them. We suffer with them. Thus, if you have a soft, compassionate heart you’ll likely struggle more with theodicy issues. Many of us can put images of suffering out of our minds. Others can’t. And that creates a heavy theological burden.
But theodicy has an analytical side as well. There are a lot of people who struggle with God simply because they are tenacious in following the theological thread to the logical and bitter end. A lot of us think our way into faith problems. It’s not that we think too much, just that we insist that people face up to the logical assumptions and consequences of their beliefs.
Generally speaking, because for the most part people specialize in one of these two areas, you can find solace in the area you aren’t so good at. Emotional types, who don’t really want to reason through theological puzzles, often settle for mystery. They don’t mind “not knowing.” Here their disinterest in analysis gives them a place to run when the emotional burden gets too heavy. When the emotional weight starts to crush they can fall back on “God is in control.”
Conversely, analytical types can find shelter on the emotional side. That is, in demanding logical consistency these people might reach a conclusion that demands a certain level of hardheartedness. A lot of Calvinists fit this description in how they handle the problem of evil. As a system Calvinism has a sort of cold, implacable logic to it. But tender-hearted people simply recoil in the face of it. We get the logic of the system but are too softhearted to stomach the conclusions. That’s what I’m trying to point out. You can work the logic but you have to hedge on the empathy. And by reducing empathy you can wiggle out of the theodicy trap your theology is creating.
So we see people doing one of two things to run from theodicy problems. Hedge on the empathy or hedge on the logical consistency.
Richard Beck
So we see people doing one of two things to run from theodicy problems. Hedge on the empathy or hedge on the logical consistency.
At the core of my problem with thinking and discontent is theodicy’s problems.
A theodicy is an attempt to justify or defend God in the face of evil by answering the following problem, which in its most basic form involves these assumptions:
https://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/theodicy_brief_overview.htm
God is all good and all powerful (and, therefore, all knowing).
The universe/creation was made by God and/or exists in a contingent relationship to God.
Evil exists in the world. Why?
As Beck correctly points out, faced with theodicy problems, we avoid God’s answer to Job and opt for empathy or logical consistency. ( I told you there would be twists and turns.) . Ironically, ideological conflicts we are experiencing directly relate to a choice between empathy and logical consistency ( liberal vs conservative).
The subject of empathy recently caught my attention. As a Christ follower, I have held an unexamined assumption that empathy is a virtue. So I was surprised when I read“Have you heard the one about empathy being a Sin”.
Iis my opinion that “empathy as a sin” is an illustration of what happening when Evangelical Christianity’s historic beliefs are co-opted by the opposition. Rather than an opportunity for agreement, sadly, what is virtuous becomes sin.
Subsequently, I have begun to examine empathy and found it worthy of more thoughtful examination (at the risk of thinking too much and increasing my discontent). For that reason, I am going to write a series of posts on empathy. If you are so inclined, here are some readings to whet your appetite:
Richard Beck has written extensively on empathy. You read his 14 posts HERE . Anyone who reads all 14 is eligible for a special award.
NYT’s David Brooks “The Limits of Empathy”
Still on the Journey