Augustine on why bad things happen to good people and vice versa

From City of God, Book 1, Chapters 8 and 9:

To the divine providence it has seemed good to prepare in the world to come for the righteous good things, which the unrighteous shall not enjoy; and for the wicked evil things, by which the good shall not be tormented. But as for the good things of this life, and its ills, God has willed that these should be common to both; that we might not too eagerly covet the things which wicked men are seen equally to enjoy, nor shrink with an unseemly fear from the ills which even good men often suffer.

There is, too, a very great difference in the purpose served both by those events which we call adverse and those called prosperous. For the good man is neither uplifted with the good things of time, nor broken by its ills; but the wicked man, because he is corrupted by this world’s happiness, feels himself punished by its unhappiness. Yet often, even in the present distribution of temporal things, does God plainly evince His own interference. For if every sin were now visited with manifest punishment, nothing would seem to be reserved for the final judgment; on the other hand, if no sin received now a plainly divine punishment, it would be concluded that there is no divine providence at all. And so of the good things of this life: if God did not by a very visible liberality confer these on some of those persons who ask for them, we should say that these good things were not at His disposal; and if He gave them to all who sought them, we should suppose that such were the only rewards of His service; and such a service would make us not godly, but greedy rather, and covetous. Wherefore, though good and bad men suffer alike, we must not suppose that there is no difference between the men themselves, because there is no difference in what they both suffer. For even in the likeness of the sufferings, there remains an unlikeness in the sufferers; and though exposed to the same anguish, virtue and vice are not the same thing. For as the same fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; and under the same flail the straw is beaten small, while the grain is cleansed; and as the lees are not mixed with the oil, though squeezed out of the vat by the same pressure, so the same violence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked. And thus it is that in the same affliction the wicked detest God and blaspheme, while the good pray and praise. So material a difference does it make, not what ills are suffered, but what kind of man suffers them. For, stirred up with the same movement, mud exhales a horrible stench, and ointment emits a fragrant odor.

Chapter 9

What, then, have the Christians suffered in that calamitous period, which would not profit every one who duly and faithfully considered the following circumstances? First of all, they must humbly consider those very sins which have provoked God to fill the world with such terrible disasters; for although they be far from the excesses of wicked, immoral, and ungodly men, yet they do not judge themselves so clean removed from all faults as to be too good to suffer for these even temporal ills. For every man, however laudably he lives, yet yields in some points to the lust of the flesh. Though he do not fall into gross enormity of wickedness, and abandoned viciousness, and abominable profanity, yet he slips into some sins, either rarely or so much the more frequently as the sins seem of less account. But not to mention this, where can we readily find a man who holds in fit and just estimation those persons on account of whose revolting pride, luxury, and avarice, and cursed iniquities and impiety, God now smites the earth as His predictions threatened? Where is the man who lives with them in the style in which it becomes us to live with them? For often we wickedly blind ourselves to the occasions of teaching and admonishing them, sometimes even of reprimanding and chiding them, either because we shrink from the labor or are ashamed to offend them, or because we fear to lose good friendships, lest this should stand in the way of our advancement, or injure us in some worldly matter, which either our covetous disposition desires to obtain, or our weakness shrinks from losing. So that, although the conduct of wicked men is distasteful to the good, and therefore they do not fall with them into that damnation which in the next life awaits such persons, yet, because they spare their damnable sins through fear, therefore, even though their own sins be slight and venial, they are justly scourged with the wicked in this world, though in eternity they quite escape punishment. Justly, when God afflicts them in common with the wicked, do they find this life bitter, through love of whose sweetness they declined to be bitter to these sinners.

If any one forbears to reprove and find fault with those who are doing wrong, because he seeks a more seasonable opportunity, or because he fears they may be made worse by his rebuke, or that other weak persons may be disheartened from endeavoring to lead a good and pious life, and may be driven from the faith; this man’s omission seems to be occasioned not by covetousness, but by a charitable consideration. But what is blame-worthy is, that they who themselves revolt from the conduct of the wicked, and live in quite another fashion, yet spare those faults in other men which they ought to reprehend and wean them from; and spare them because they fear to give offense, lest they should injure their interests in those things which good men may innocently and legitimately use—though they use them more greedily than becomes persons who are strangers in this world, and profess the hope of a heavenly country. For not only the weaker brethren who enjoy married life, and have children (or desire to have them), and own houses and establishments, whom the apostle addresses in the churches, warning and instructing them how they should live, both the wives with their husbands, and the husbands with their wives, the children with their parents, and parents with their children, and servants with their masters, and masters with their servants—not only do these weaker brethren gladly obtain and grudgingly lose many earthly and temporal things on account of which they dare not offend men whose polluted and wicked life greatly displeases them; but those also who live at a higher level, who are not entangled in the meshes of married life, but use meagre food and raiment, do often take thought of their own safety and good name, and abstain from finding fault with the wicked, because they fear their wiles and violence. And although they do not fear them to such an extent as to be drawn to the commission of like iniquities, nay, not by any threats or violence soever; yet those very deeds which they refuse to share in the commission of they often decline to find fault with, when possibly they might by finding fault prevent their commission. They abstain from interference, because they fear that, if it fail of good effect, their own safety or reputation may be damaged or destroyed; not because they see that their preservation and good name are needful, that they may be able to influence those who need their instruction, but rather because they weakly relish the flattery and respect of men, and fear the judgments of the people, and the pain or death of the body; that is to say, their non-intervention is the result of selfishness, and not of love.

Accordingly this seems to me to be one principal reason why the good are chastised along with the wicked, when God is pleased to visit with temporal punishments the profligate manners of a community. They are punished together, not because they have spent an equally corrupt life, but because the good as well as the wicked, though not equally with them, love this present life; while they ought to hold it cheap, that the wicked, being admonished and reformed by their example, might lay hold of life eternal. And if they will not be the companions of the good in seeking life everlasting, they should be loved as enemies, and be dealt with patiently. For so long as they live, it remains uncertain whether they may not come to a better mind. These selfish persons have more cause to fear than those to whom it was said through the prophet, He is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand. Ezekiel 33:6 For watchmen or overseers of the people are appointed in churches, that they may unsparingly rebuke sin. Nor is that man guiltless of the sin we speak of, who, though he be not a watchman, yet sees in the conduct of those with whom the relationships of this life bring him into contact, many things that should be blamed, and yet overlooks them, fearing to give offense, and lose such worldly blessings as may legitimately be desired, but which he too eagerly grasps. Then, lastly, there is another reason why the good are afflicted with temporal calamities— the reason which Job’s case exemplifies: that the human spirit may be proved, and that it may be manifested with what fortitude of pious trust, and with how unmercenary a love, it cleaves to God.

When doing good turns out bad

What do we do when following Jesus sucks?

Jesus calls us to follow him into suffering similar to his own. “The son of man has no place to lay his head”; his follower must “take up his cross.” Suffering is an integral part of following Him. “This is no cake walk. Are you in?” Faith is future oriented and doesn’t mean many earthly returns.

When doing the right thing doesn’t fix, even makes worse, cultivate joy. Intentionally worship. “Keep the worship music turned up loud.”

Renew your commitment. Don’t give up. Make your oath of allegiance with the breath that gasps with pain.

Continue on. Don’t stop or relent. Contend for his promises. Read 1 Peter 5:10 and say the amen.

Never evaluate a trial by the beginning or the middle, but by the end. Looking up and moving forward with stalwart faith is the answer to what to do when doing good turns out bad.

Paradoxes Part 2: The Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil, as a Syllogism: 
Premise 1: The Christian God is both infinitely good and omnipotent.
Premise 2: Bad exists.
Therefore: The Christian God cannot exist.

We can argue against either of these two premises in order to neutralize the argument.

What is the difference between doing and ordaining? 
For we say that God ordained, or divinely decreed, evil (and he must have) yet God cannot cause or do evil, nor even tempt one to evil.

If God is all good and all powerful…

…then why do bad things happen? This is one of the most common objections to the Christian God.

What if I say, “Because people have free will”? I would object to myself. God is sovereign, and no one’s free will is outside his ordained and chosen plan. Therefore, if I’m choosing to sin, he has chosen (in a sense) that that sin should exist. An atheist becomes a staunch Calvinist when given this answer, and he has the right to do so.

So if God is ultimately responsible for the pain, evil and suffering in this world, what can we say? There’s only one way I can see to avoid concluding that God is either twisted or impotent, and that is to say that bad things really aren’t bad things. Huh? We have to reassign the point of reference by which we evaluate good and evil.

What if pain is not bad, but a neutral thing, which in fact creates good by drawing people to kneel before the throne, or to demonstrate the un-ultimateness of the world? What if neediness is not a violation of my rights before God, but a revelation of my true nature, and how much I am insufficient but God is sufficient? What if evil is simply the state of something that lacks God’s influence? And what if God has chosen, for mysterious reasons, to create some things and then remove his influence over them? What if death is not bad, but a neutral thing that consummates the nature of a man to be forever what he has become. And what if, having become bad, he glorifies God forever as an object of justice?

Questions about why bad things happen can usually be found to rest upon the presupposition that man is the center of the universe. If God really is the point, the epicenter, the purpose of everything, then our definition of “bad things” alters drastically.

Therefore, we could answer the question this way: Inasmuch as God uses all things for his glory, and his glory is the ultimate good, then all bad things are ultimately good things, even though they may be bad things from the man’s perspective to whom they occur.

That answer might have some problems of its own, but it’s the best one I’ve got at the moment. Further challenges welcome, as we continually seek to better carve out our vision of the truth.

Lightbulbs and shadows

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. – James 1:13-15

Here’s the problem:
1. God cannot tempt. “Our own lust” is the thing that tempts.
2. God created everything. And “everything” includes “our own lust.”
3. Therefore God set in place the mechanism of our temptation.

Has he not then ordained our temptation? How is that practically different than his tempting us directly? “For will resist his will?”

For one thing, there is a mystery wherein, as John Piper says, “God disapproves of the moral nature of many things he has ordained to happen–like the crucifixion of his Son.” God had chosen to crucify Christ before he even created the world. Square One, Plan A.(see Acts 4:27-28) Evil has always been useful in the glorification of God, it seems.

But does the end justify the means, you will ask? Is it not evil to do evil so that good may result, by God’s own moral code? “God cannot be tempted” much less sin. He cannot do evil. If he does it, it’s not evil.

So how then do we explain his ordination of this lust of ours, which carries us away and entices us? I present an image that has helped me understand a mite of this, if it may help any other reader (or simply remind myself when I get hung up on the issue again in a few minutes). The image may be hinted at, I think, by the verses immediately following James 1:13-15.

Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. – James 1:16-17

Consider me standing near a light bulb and casting a shadow on the ground. Is the shadow from the light bulb? (Can it “be held responsible”?) In weak sense, yes – if it weren’t for the light from the bulb, no shadow would be distinguishable. Yet the light bulb only emits light, it doesn’t emit non-light. In fact, darkness is everything the light bulb doesn’t emit. The thing that is creating the shadow is my body, which is obstructing its rays. It makes little sense to attribute the darkness to the light.

God has created in us the capacity to experience the “not-God.” It is this absence of Him in a desire that twists it into dark lust (1 John 1:5, “God is light”). But when we choose to love the darkness (John 3:19), to gaze intently upon a shadow, he is not to blame for having “made it.” Evil, like shadow, is not something as much as it is the lack of something.

God has not tempted.
He is all light.
We ourselves have cast the shadows which we have chosen to worship.

C.S. Lewis on divine omnipotence and goodness

I present for your thoughtful consideration my favorite excerpts from Lewis’ insight on God’s predestination, justice and love- relevant to the timeless tension of the Problem of Evil. These are hand-typed, so I must really agree with them!

Perhaps this is not the “best of all possible’ universes, but the only possible one. Possible worlds can mean only ‘worlds that God could have made, but didn’t’. The idea of that which God ‘could have’ done involves a too anthropomorphic [man-shaped] conception of God’s freedom. Whatever human freedom means, Divine freedom cannot mean indeterminacy between alternatives and choice of one of them. Perfect goodness can never debate about the end to be attained, and perfect wisdom cannot debate about the means most suited to achieve it. The freedom of God consists in the fact that no cause other than Himself produces His acts and no external obstacle impedes them—that His own goodness is the root from which they all grow and His own omnipotence the air in which they all flower.…

No answer [has been] attempted to the objection that if the universe must, from the outset, admit the possibility of suffering, then absolute goodness would have left the universe uncreated. And I must warn the reader that I shall not attempt to prove that to create was better than not to create: I am aware of no human scales in which such a portentous question can be weighed. Some comparison between one state of being and another can be made, but the attempt to compare being and not being ends in mere words. “It would be better for me not to exist” – in what sense “for me”? How should I, if I did not exist, profit by not existing?

—C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, Chapter 2, “Divine Omnipotence”

If God’s moral judgment differs from our so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good”, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say “God is we know not what.” And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If he is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. …The Divine ‘goodness’ differs from ours, but it is not sheerly different: it differs from ours not as white from black but as a perfect circle from a child’s first attempt to draw a wheel. But when the child has learned to draw, it will know that the circle it then makes is what it was trying to make from the very beginning….

We call human love selfish when it satisfies its own needs at the expense of the object’s needs—as when a father keeps at home, because he cannot bear to relinquish their society, children who ought, in their own interests, to be put out into the world. The situation implies a need or passion on the part of the lover, an incompatible need on the part of the beloved, and the lover’s disregard or culpable ignorance of the beloved’s need. None of these conditions is present in the relation of God to man. God has no needs. Human love, as Plato teaches us, is the child of Poverty—of a want or lack; it is caused by a real or supposed good in its beloved which the lover needs and desires. But God’s love, far from being caused by goodness in the object, causes all the goodness which the object has, loving it first into existence and then into real, though derivative, lovability. God is Goodness. He can give good, but cannot need or get it. In that sense all his love is, as it were, bottomlessly selfless by very definition; it has everything to give and nothing to receive.

—C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, Chapter 3, “Divine Goodness”

The difficulty of life, and why God seems distant

I can only say that I have been well acquainted with distance from God during my life. Sometimes it’s my fault, but others I’m doing everything right. But it’s in those times, when it makes no sense, that I experience the essence of faith. “Faith is not a feeling, it’s what you believe in spite of them.”

Nate, you don’t need faith when God answers. You need faith now. Now is the time to be assured of what you hope for, and to hold onto scripture as the evidence for what you can’t see.

James 1:2-4 Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

And we can take comfort in the fact that Christ experienced separation from God.

Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Is this difficulty, this pain, a horror story? No, it is a love story because of how it ends.

Consider the sweetness of suffering…
No pain, no gain
Ripped muscles lead to bigger muscles
Broken seeds lead to new sprouts
The beauty of dawn cannot come without night
Consummation is worthless without waiting
Food is tender and flavorful after being cooked in the fire
The mother must let go to see maturity in the son
The father cries at the wedding of his daughter
Without strenuous study, there is no knowledge
Without negative experience, there is no wisdom
Without rain there is no good in sun
Without cold there is no good in a hearth
Without heat there is not good in shade
Sweet pastry is made better with bitter coffee
The dramatic pause leads into the climax
The quality of every story is in the intensity of its conflict

So if I run from discomfort, I commit the greatest act of cowardice.

Hebrews 12:2
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

He endured the pain of the cross, because of the joy he saw in the distance. Let us do likewise.

Sun and rain

For the three days following Christmas I built a sheep fence with my friend Kent on his farm. We worked basically sunup to sundown. The first day was dreary, rainy, freezing cold, with biting wind. My brief meals inside were sweet but meager respites from an environment I imagine must closely resemble hell. The second day was clear and beautiful. The sun made the field glow happily as it set in a golden sky; instead of razor-sharp wind, there was a soft breeze.

Some people say that evil exists for the purpose of contrasting good, so that we can really know what good is. I don’t believe there is such a simple answer to the problem of evil–that solution is lodged somewhere in the mysterious thoughts and intentions of God Himself. But now my work at Kent’s farm has turned from two days of reality into countless days of memory. In the eternal substance of memory, that day of suffering is purified and sweetened by the following day of good, until they together form a memory that is good. An experience. An adventure worth telling. A story for me to tell while friends drink it up.

But what happened there? That day of bad and that day of good seem to cancel each other out during their present reality, producing no net goodness. Yet as they pass from reality to memory, a sweet memory results from the two, which has a net value of good. The essential events that life is really made of. The mysterious moments we want and even need to live. (When we are not partaking in such a clash of sun and rain, we usually supplement this by watching movies, sports teams, and other artificial sources.)

Perhaps this in some way reflects the way in which God becomes “more than a conqueror” of evil, mysteriously overcoming it in eternity.