Don't Ask Why

If a good god is in control, how can a 12 year old get raped by her father?

The eternal question of why bad things happen to good people resurfaced this week with the comments by Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock. He was widely reported as saying that rape is God's will. What he said precisely was, "Life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen.” His comment propelled many people into a philosophical highdive into the deep end of the theology pool.

John South, a jail chaplain from Arizona, said that he knew of a twelve year old who was being raped repeatedly by her father. She came to the jail pregnant. CNN reports that South said, "that the girl... opted for an abortion and her father was ultimately convicted of rape. He said he grappled often with why she was subjected to such horrendous pain and torture, mentally, physically and emotionally. 'Did it shake my faith? No,' South said. 'Did I ask God why? Of course.'”

CNN also sought comment from Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of the best-selling book When Bad Things Happen to Good People.  Kushner said Mourdock’s remarks were off-base: “He’s invoking the will of God where it is not appropriate." The Catholic perspective was provided by Father Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. He said he found Mourdock’s comments troubling from a Catholic perspective because “God does not want rape to happen. Someone getting pregnant through rape simply means biology continues to function. That doesn’t mean God wills it."

So where is God in all this. People like Kushner set up a false dilemma by saying either God is not good, or else He is not all-powerful, both characteristics which traditional Bible scholars hold to be true. This is a false dilemma because it imagines a world where God must operate according to Rabbi Kushner's rules. In the real world created by the God of the Bible, evil exists because sin entered when Adam and Eve chose to reject God's perfect plan. The entire Bible narrative is about God's work to redeem the fallen creation, not least of all, sinful humans.

Father Reese makes a different but no less misleading suggestion that some things happen outside of God's will. Here things get sticky, and many people jump ship theologically speaking because the truth is not pretty. The truth as orthodox Christianity has presented it for centuries is that God is sovereign over all His creation. This uncomfortable position includes the question of evil. The book of Job and the record of God's dealing with recalcitrant Israel prove this to be the case, as it must be. If God were not in control of everything, then logic dictates that He could ultimately be in control of nothing.

John South said his experience with the pregnant incest victim made him ask God why she was subjected to such horror. This is precisely where most people fall victim to humanistic thinking. There are many things about God that we cannot know. The realm of "why" is filled with those things. The things we can know about God are revealed in the Scriptures and are accessible to anyone who will sincerely look for them. But we must not look only for answers we like. It may be that God, being sovereign will choose to do things mere mortals cannot understand. He may do things, allow things we will honestly hate.

In a fallen world, 12 year olds will be raped. This is not God's fault; this is man's fault for turning from God's perfect ways. The good news is that we are not trapped in the downward spiral of evil that assaults us every waking moment. We have a Savior; we have an escape; we have the assurance that even the worst imaginable thing can be turned into good eventually by the good God who works all things together for His purposes. We must not ask God why; we must ask what: what am I to learn from this. And then we must wait patiently for the day when evil is removed from the earth and righteoussness reigns. The only legitimate why quiestion might be, "Why not today?"

Say What You Mean, Joe

I never thought I'd find myself supporting Joe Biden over Paul Ryan.

Maybe it is going too far to say I support Biden's position, but I think he may have stated the role of personal faith in politics correctly last night in his debate with Paul Ryan. Moderator Martha Raddatz pointed out that both debaters were Catholic and asked how that faith would affect their governing.

Ryan said he believed that life begins at conception then went straight to the campaign position that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. This position is not logically sustainable (see my earlier post,) nor is it proper Catholic teaching. According to Catholics for Choice, "The Catholic church hierarchy today does not permit abortion in any instance, not even in case of rape or as a direct way of saving the life of a pregnant woman." Historically, given the tough choice between saving a mother or her child, the Catholic position has been to save the child. The Ryan position fails both as a reflection of his faith and as a logically defensible argument.

Biden, on the other hand, gave a slightly more consistent answer. He said he too believed that life begins at conception and was against abortion as a personal matter of faith. However, he said that he did not believe he had the right to impose his religious beliefs on society. Much as I hate to say it, I must agree with Joe; America was founded as and continues to be a place where citizens may embrace any religion or none at all with no interference from government - almost.

The flaw in the pro-choicers' argument stems from the basic position outlined by both men in last night's debate: life begins at conception. While the Judeo-Christian scriptures do support this claim, it is more than a religious principle. Logic firmly supports it as well. There is no way to distinguish between the fertilized egg and the post-partum result of that fertilization. The humanity of the life form is different only by degree. As I said in my earlier post, it is a slippery slope to begin judging which humans are human enough to deserve to live.

Ryan (and ostensibly his running mate) wants to allow the murder of innocents if circumstances seem to warrant it. This violates the principles of both faith and reason. Biden (and Obama) are equally inconsistent. It sounds democratic (small "d") to say one will not allow personal ideology to influence public policy. Forgetting the ridiculous impossibility of such a position, this too violates faith and reason. It is unreasonable because one who believes that life begins at conception (a logical conclusion) cannot condone the taking of that life for any reason. It violates Joe's faith because his church disagrees.

Ken Ham has been correctly preaching for years that as Christians in society, we should focus on battling the foundational flaws in humanistic philosophy (aka religion,) rather than merely opposing its policies. Laws must be founded on some ideal; moral relativism leads to anarchy when what's right for you may not be right for me. To see the frightening result of such thinking, one need only read a few words by such Pragmatists as the old William James and John Dewey or the newer spokesmen, Cornel West and Richard Rorty. Peter Singer, a utilitarian pragmatist from Princeton, who appears to have ice water in his veins, will positively terrify any thoughtful, considerate human being with his support of outright infanticide and euthanasia.

I still plan to vote for Romney/Ryan because I believe their position on abortion is closer to mine than Obama/Biden, but I wish someone would stake out a truly pro-life position. I also wish Christian politicians would stop wobbling on their faith commitment. Everyone makes decisions based on some assumption about truth. This nation was unashamedly founded on the assumption that a Creator invested humans with inalienable rights and the government's job is to protect those rights.

Muslims, Bhuddists and atheists are all safe under an American government anchored to Biblical principles. The same cannot be said for Christians under a Muslim government. It certainly would not be true if Peter Singer were king. And apparently, there will still be a few of the unborn who will not be safe even under a Romney/Ryan administration. That's a shame.