The Goodness of God and the Power of God: Part 4

No, no...not "Free Willy", Free Will.  But making Killer Whales live in tiny bathtubs is evil.

So...what shall we say, then?  Given the universe as it is, and given the theistic God as all-powerful, what motivates His actions?  Why is He content to have things the way they are (even if it is for a limited amount of time?)

One of the most famous ideas for God's motivation is that of free will: God wanted to make a universe with free moral agents, knowing that some would choose evil, and others would choose good.  Only by "risking" the existence of evil could God insure the existence of the truly good.  There had to be a real choice to make beings truly "in the image of God" who would reflect His character--not because they had to, but because they chose to do so.

It's easy to see why this solution is attractive.  Since God wanted true moral choice, it was inevitable that some would choose to do evil.  So Hitler, Stalin, the Unabomber, Timothy McVey, Osama bin Laden, and the guy who just cut you off in traffic all chose to act the way they did.  That is the inevitable result of God allowing free choice.

But some might raise this objection:  exactly who's free choice is respected in this view?  I mean, maybe Hitler had some free choice...but what about his victims?  I don't think the Jews freely chose to be put in cattle cars, led to death camps, and ultimately gassed and cremated?  Where was their free will?  Or let's say a woman is drugged and sexually abused by an evil man--the man's free will was protected, but the woman did not freely chose her actions, did she?

This is often answered by saying that "free will" involves moral choice and not freedom of action.  That is, neither Hitler's victims nor the victim of rape made a moral decision to do good or evil in being subjected to evil; yes, their freedom was limited--but they were not compelled to act in an evil way against their will.

That's not a bad explanation, but it does reveal something about this universe:  in at least some cases, God is more interested in protecting the free will of evil people than protecting the freedom, health, or even life of the innocent.

Let that sink in: if the free will theory for accounting for evil is true, then the right to choose evil is often more important than stopping evil, at least in God's point of view.  There is a "higher good" (the free will of the evil choosers) than the "good" of stopping evil.  (Sounds a bit like the secret will of God, but I'm not going into the Arminian/Calvinist debate...yet.)

But a Biblical Christian who accepts this will also say that this freedom is not absolute--in the Bible, God often intervenes to stop evil:

• He stops wicked men from abusing Lot and his guests (Gen 19:4-11)...but He did not stop the men of Gibeah from abusing and murdering the Levite's concubine (Jud 19:22-26) 
• He stops the Egyptian armies from destroying the recently-freed Israelite slaves (Ex 14:26-31) ...but He did not stop Herod from murdering some Galileans while they were sacrificing (Luke 13:1-5)
• He heals Hezekiah from his sickness (2 Kings 20:1-11) ...but lets David's infant son die (2 Sam 12:14-23)

I could list many examples.  However, it is clear: the God of the Bible sometimes miraculously intervenes to stop evil, and sometimes does not.

So, we ask why?  Why does God sometimes stops the choice of evil men to harm the innocent, and sometimes does not?  Or, in the last example, allows sickness to kill, but at other times He heals the sick?  What is His motivation in all this?

Before I address this, I'd like to point out two more serious questions of the free will explanation for evil:

(1) Only a limited amount of evil can be explained by the choices of evil men.  There are other things that seem to have no connection with the free choice of an individual or groups of people: earthquakes, random genetic mutations, certain diseases, etc.  As I mentioned in the last post, these natural evils" often cause far more pain and suffering than the act of fellow humans.

There's a variation of the dualistic view of the Zoroastrians (two equally powerful Gods duking it out) where the devil is not as powerful as God (or anywhere close to it), but nonetheless can cause lots of evil, even what we call "natural evil."  The story of Job shows Satan in control of some natural forces...but please note: he still has to ask permission from God to take action against Job.  Thus, God is still not "off the hook" for the evil that befalls the righteous.

(2) In theistic belief, the eternal state of the blessed (for universalists, everyone) is an eternal blissful place called heaven, where we are in God's very presence forever and ever.  It's viewed as much, much better than our current state.

But the question arises: in the eternal state, are we still free moral agents?  Could we freely choose to do evil?

Some counter that we wouldn't want to do evil, so it wouldn't enter our minds--so we would never sin, it would be against our nature.  Well then, if it's possible for free beings to live in a state of sinless perfection and be free, why do we have to go through the current state of "free will means there must be some evil"?

I'll let you ponder that before my next installment.  Stay tuned, my friends.