Is This a God

Of Love?

A. E. Wilder-Smith

TWFT. Publishers

Costa Mesa, California

Is This a God Of Love?

Translated from the original German by

Petra Wilder-Smith

© 1991 A. E. Wilder-Smith

Published in Collaboration with Pro Universitate

e. V., Roggern, CH-3646, Einigen, Switzerland

and TWFT. Publishers, P.O. Box 8000, Costa

Mesa, CA 92628

ISBN 0-936728-39-6

Published in German by Hänssler, Neuhausen-

Stuttgart, 6th. edition, 1988. (ISBN3-7751-0076-8).

Portionsprevious^iintedtoEnglishas'TheParadox

of Pain," Harold Shaw Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois,

1971

All Rights Reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in

any form or by any means — electronic,

mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise

— without the prior permission of TWFT.

Publishers, with the exception of brief excerpts

in magazine articles and/or reviews.

Contents

The Fink Professor 1

The Spokesman Of Many Thinking People 12

The Problem Is Not New 15

Another Approach 19

Thought and Action: Today and Yesterday 27

Equating Fact To Non-Fact 31

How Faith Is Gained 34

The Exasperated Student 36

The Age Of Reason 37

Picasso In Chicago 39

Atheistic Gergymen 40

Consequences.. 42

Man Cannot Live Without Rationality 46

Is There A Place For "Blind Faith"? 48

The Atheistic & Agnostic Positions 51

The Gothic Cathedral 56

Complicating The Issue 58

Inefficient Architects? 62

Summary 65

The Origin of Evil 67

Nature Of Love And Virtue 70

Rebekah 75

The Amnon And Tamar Affair 76

Free Choice 78

The Case Of The Robot 80

The Grand Risk 82

Almsgiving And The Socialist State 83

George Muller's Orphanages 87

The Creation, Seen And Unseen 91

The Dignity Of Man 95

The Degree Of Man's Freedom 97

The Problem of Rebuilding 103

The Problem Of The Consequences 105

The Problem Of God's Answer 108

How To Restore Love 110

Thwarting God's Will 112

King George VI Of England 113

The Final Refusal 117

Suffering: Is There Any Reasonable Interpretation? ..125

Resentment Against Purposeless Suffering 125

If God Is Good, Will He Hurt Us? 127

Was Christ Ever In Man's Position? 128

The Cross And God's Love 130

Hurting In Order To Heal 132

The Scriptural Position 134

Accurate Surgery Or Wholesale Butchery? 136

The Exact Therapy Of The Cross 137

A Less Ugly Way? 140

Made Perfect 142

Suffering — Not Senseless 146

Promised Tribulation 149

The Reason Why 150

Perfection 154

Rejoicing In Suffering 157

A Possible Misunderstanding 158

Gentling Process 160

Again, Why All The Barbarism And Cruelty? ...162

Importance Of The Stakes 165

The Joy Of Relief 166

Predestination & Free Will 175

Passages Teaching Free Will 176

"The tortures occur. If they are

unnecessary, then there is no God or a

bad one. If there is a good God, then these

tortures are necessary."

C. S. Lewis

Chapter I

The Pink Professor

When I was a student of natural

sciences in England, some of our lectures

were givenby a professor who had marked

leftist tendencies. His lectures at the uni-

versity were the poorest we ever endured.

He'd bring a load of scientific journals into

the lecture hall, open them, apparently at

random, and then just talk. But he was a

gentleman and was kind, in his reserved

way, to all of us.

Acomplete transformation took place

in the evenings when he went into town

and stood on a soapbox to harangue the

masses with the verve and skill of the

Is This a God of Love?

convinced revolutionary. He was nobly

rewarded by his leftist political friends

when they gained control of the country,

for he soon became a peer, with the title of

"lord," and was appointed an important

administrator of a big university.

This professor was, in common with

many Marxist theorists, a convinced and

militant atheist One day he came into the

laboratory, unnoticed by me, as I was

talking to another student about things

other than purely materialistic science. I

remarked that, not surprisingly, the study

of matter would probably yield informa-

tion only about matter. Trans-material

matters migjit exist, but they would be

overlooked by such methods. One could

not expect to pick up ultraviolet light with

a film sensitive only to infrared light. But

even if infrared paper showed nothing

that would not prove that no ultraviolet

wave-lengths existed. I saw no reason not

to believe in God merely because our

instruments had not detected him. Per-

haps they were not on the same wave-

length.

Hie Pink Professor

Overhearing these remarks, our pro-

fessor exploded. "It really is a mystery to

me," he said, "how otherwise intelligent

people can say they believe in any god, let

alone in a good and wise one, whom they

call a person. We can explain the whole

universe and all of life without resorting to

the outdated and unnecessary postulate

of a god behind it all. Chance and long

time spans will do all that your theolo-

gians imagine he did without ever appeal-

ing to such nonsense as the 'Old Man in

the Skies."

He continued: "It really is beyond my

comprehension that intelligent people to-

day could still be taken in by the same old

drivel. I can understand cannibals in the

jungle talking as you do. But not a student

of the natural sciences in the twentieth

century. It is bad enough to have people

believing theoretically in a god behind

things. But you people are much worse.

You believe you have a personal sort of

friendship with this god of yours and

think you will therefore get preferential

treatment from him. I can understand,

Is This a God of Love?

perhaps, some old people saying they

believe in some sort of mysterious spirit

when they see a sunrise, a beautiful face,

a rose or an orchid. But it is proof of

positive lack in intelligence on the part of

those same people when they do not take

the time to see the other side of the coin.

They have not the courage to see the other

side and boldly throw out their mythical

gods — the cowards!"

Having switched into his soapbox

mood, our professor was in dead earnest

— and angry! "People must be lacking in

I.Q. if they do not see the other side of the

picture which wipes out all the sunset and

beauty stuff.** He continued by talking

about the cat stalking the mouse and

playing with it letting it totter away half

dead and then grabbing it again at the last

minute in its horrible claws. Then, when

the poor mouse did not have the strength

to provide any more fun for the cat, it

would squeeze the life out of its tattered

body, biting its head off with a juicy

crunch, and purring with delight at the

evening's entertainment. "It is marvellous

The Pink Professor

that your intelligent almighty, all-loving

and kind god prepared both the mouse in

its helplessness and the cat with its talon

strength and cruel mentality. This is a

beautiful proof of the goodness of your

god," he said, with a look of profound

scorn in my direction.

I shrank into my corner of the labora-

tory, but he had not finished with me.

"What about the young mother dying of

cancer, her body stinking of decay before

they take the baby from her and putherin

her coffin? Is that your proof of the great

Creator who made all things well — all

things brightandbeautiful?TheLord God

made them all," he hissed. "And what

about your capitalists who have worn

down the working masses for centuries

and built your churches to help you do it?

We are going to alter all that — and

quickly, believe me!"

"What disgusts me," he said, "is the

rank hypocrisy of it all." After a pause to

regain his poise, he added, "What about

all the agony—the agony of the father and

children left behind when they bury the

Is Tliis a God of Love?

mother? What about the lifetimes of hun-

ger suffered by the poor in India and

Russia? Did your good god create all that

as well as the sunrises and the laughing

faces?" Looking grimly at me, he leaned

across the table and said slowly, "Be-

cause, if he did — if he did make the

disgusting, the cruel and the nauseating,

as well as the beautiful — then I, for one,

would believe him to be a devil and not a

god. Only a devil could make the appar-

ently beautiful and then mock us all with

the anguish of the disgusting. But, as I am

not so medieval as to believe either in

devils or gods, for that matter, I regard the

whole argument as a pure wanton waste

of time, not worthy of mention in a scien-

tific laboratory."

Having unburdened his soul, he re-

gained some of his professorial aplomb

and smilingly looked around for any an-

swers that might be forthcoming. I

mumbled something to the effect that his

was only one side of the question. Other

great people had no difficulty in maintain-

ing an entirely opposite view.

The Pink Professor

"Let us leave out the question of wars

and suffering caused by man himself," he

said. "We might explain problems caused

by man directly as due to his not being

evolved far enough away from his animal

ancestors. If we wait long enough, he will

evolve higher and get better. Let us leave

that and look at another field to which no

one has ever honestly turned with a reply

that was satisfactory to me. What about

the refinement of torture we see all around

us which has nothing whatever to do with

man's nature? Take the designed torture

we can all see in the transmission of the

malarial parasite. It shows signs of what

looks like careful, thoughtful planning

with the single purpose of plaguing and

torturing the host animal, or man. To me

the whole system looks like a remarkable

sort of planning, if a good god worked it all

out. As I said before, if you want a plan

behind the universe and life, this sort of

setup and planning seems to show a good

and a bad, a kindly and a vindictive

planner all in one—a god who is a devil."

8 Is This a God of Love?

Musing, he continued, "No, I just

cannot believe this religious stuff myself.

It really is just too ridiculous. My intelli-

gence and my common sense force me to

reject the whole bag of nonsense. I am

near enough to being a nihilist you tell

me. But I should become an absolute

nihilist if I were to force myself to believe in

a god who is a devil. An almighty god, such

as you believe in, and a good god, just

could not show so many evidences of what

appear to be thoughtful, planned good-

ness, such as sunrises and other beau-

ties, and at the same time so many signs

of cold, calculated, intelligent, sadism. If

you were able to develop sufficient logic,"

he said, scornfully addressing himself

directly to me, "you would have recog-

nized long ago that your views lead di-

rectly to nihilism. Can you imagine any

supreme, almigjity, personal being, who

was at the same time all-wise and all-good

and yet frightfully vindictive and bad,

planning all sorts of plagues and diseases

as well as the beauty of the rising sun and

The Pink Professor

the healthy body? It just does not make

sense. It is plain bunk." He turned from

me in contempt.

There was quiet for a short while.

Then he began once more: "Of course, you

people always try to get around the diffi-

culty by actually assuming a devil, who

surprised the all-knowing and all-power-

ful, almighty one by upsetting his apple

cart when he was not looking. I suppose

you attribute the disease, cancer, war,

exploitation of the workers, and all the

rest of this world's woes to a devil, do you

not? But do you not realize that if god were

almigfity and good, wishing us — the so-

called creatures of his hand — well, he

must have neutralized the machinations

of your devil before he got to work with his

hosts of wicked angels in which you, no

doubt, believe? Then the devil could not

have been a source of devilry, could he? Of

course, if your god is not almighty with

respect to the devil, then there is only one

thing to say about him: he is not god at all

any more. So you destroy him this way if

you do not destroy him the other way. If

10 Is This a God of Love?

god cannot get even with the devil, then

the devil must be god too; and we are once

more reduced to the primitive ideas of

warring gods and devils in heaven and

hell. You are not suggesting that we revert

to ideas like that, are you? They held up

intellectual progress and emancipation

for centuries. I shall consider you an

enemy of all true progress if you have the

effrontery to inform me in a scientific

laboratory that you believe in that sort of

trash," he said, looking hard at me.

I am afraid most of us were rather like

the proverbial rabbit when confronted by

the snake — transfixed. No answers

seemed to be able to formulate themselves

in our brains. After all, our professor was

a learned man. He was not just repeating

slogans learned in Marxist circles. Obvi-

ously he was thoroughly convinced of his

views. His extreme seriousness made him

willing to stand up on a soapbox and

confront the mob — an act which must

have been rather humiliating for a profes-

sor of his standing. Although he was

almost useless as a professor and lecturer

The Pink Professor 11

in the classroom and experimental labo-

ratory, we respected him as a man, even

thougji not all of us liked his convictions

on political or religious matters.

While we were thinking about these

things, he quietly started again. "I used to

say,** he continued, "that I was an agnostic

and therefore could say nothing for cer-

tain about religious matters. Butnowthat

I am getting more mature and experi-

enced, I have come to the conclusion that

I am in reality a total atheist. I have been

forced to the point where I do not believe

in any god, either good or bad. That is, I

believe neither in a good god nor in a bad

devil. Such beliefs raise more difficulties

than they remove. They just complicate

matters. So, today, I just leave religious

matters outside my realm of thought —

like alchemy. And I do not like people

raising them in the classroom either. They

only confuse, being highly unscientific

and subjective. I do not need to blur my

intellectual horizon with such primitive

methods of thought any longer. The Marx-

ists are not altogether wrong when they

12 Is This a God of Love?

call religion "opium for the people." It is

just that; it muddles their thoughts, blurs

their vision and, because they can see

clearly no more, renders them an easy

prey for the capitalists who are just wait-

ing to exploit them for their own benefit."

The Spokesman Of Many Thinking

People

I have never forgotten that afternoon

in the laboratory. Certainly our professor

had thought more about these matters

than we students had. Moreover, he un-

derstood the problems of the ordinary

thinking men and, when he wished, could

be an excellent spokesman for them. Be-

cause he understood them, he could sway

them when he spoke. He never spoke with

such conviction on cold, matter-of-fact

chemical matters, but no one could get

across ideas like he when revolution and

Marxism came up. His attitudes are still

typical of many university professors all

over the West. Since the total collapse of

Marxism behind the former iron curtain

there are many professors in the East who

The Pink Professor 13

have abandoned the views of our pink

professor for the simple reason that they

work neither economically nor socially.

Tlie subject raised that afternoon in

the laboratory is the very question occu-

pying the minds of many thinking people

in the West today. It looms large in the life

of the person who, though satiated with

life's material goods and apparently con-

cerned only with pleasure and prosperity,

is brought face to face with life's cruelties

and suffering every day in his newspaper

and on radio and television news, and is

jolted by what is happening around him in

his own life. If God is almighty—and if he

is God, he must be almighty — why

doesn't he stop all this chaos, all these

wars, all the unrighteousness, injustice,

misery and suffering in this world? Why

did he ever let them start? Mere men

everywhere are bending all their efforts to

do what they can to stop it all. But,

fortunately or unfortunately, men are not

almighty and therefore cannot reach their

goal.

14 Is Ulis a God of Love?

Years ago, a student friend crippled

with polio told me, "If you want me to

believe in your God, I shall expect him first

of all to make a better job of the world we

live in—and of me.** I spent a good deal of

time with him and he was apparently glad

to listen to me. In my student enthusiasm

I explained not only the Christian way of

salvation by Christ's works, but also the

intricacies of prophecy and the end of the

age. Afterward he turned to me and said

that now that he knew the way, he didn't

need to do anything about it. For, when he

saw the end coining, he would quickly

accept God's way and be all right forever!

A year or two later he was stricken with a

stroke one Sunday morning while shav-

ing. He died in seconds, without a sound.

His wife found him an hour or so later.

If God loves us men and women, as

the Bible assumes he does, why doesn't

he end all misery and immediately set up

a workable, orderly system such as most

people of good will would like and for

which they are striving? Doesn't he care

for us any longer? If he doesn't care and

Tlie Pink Professor 15

has forgotten us, why should we care

about him? Because he has allowed evil to

exist along with good, thus apparently

compromising himself in his omnipotence,

many thinking people despair of an an-

swer, or become atheists, just as my

professor had done.

The Problem Is Not New

Before further consideration of this

question, we must remind ourselves that

it is by no means new. Some have the

mistaken idea that they are very modem

if they handle the question as my profes-

sor did. They think that it stamps them as

being advanced thinkers in having recog-

nized that mankind is facing a new prob-

lem — and that they have solved it in a

particularly new way.

Of course, this is not the case. When

thistles and thorns sprang up after

mankind's first couple had fallen from the

paradise of God by disobedience, they

probably asked the same sort of question.

Why indeed did God allow all this? Does

he no longer love us and care for us? It

16 Is Ulis a God of Love?

looks as if he does not for the very ground

we cultivate does not bring forth its har-

vest any more. The birth of Cain was

probably accomplished by pain, which

was capped whenhe became his brother's

murderer. How can that grisly history

coincide with God's goodness and om-

nipotence?

Job could have asked the same kind

of questions when the messengers came

to him, one after another, each reporting

a worse catastrophe to his family. It got so

bad that Job cursed the day he had been

born. He lost everything, including his

health. Even his wife deserted him, telling

him to curse God and die. How could Job

believe in a holy, perfect and omnipotent

God, concerned about him and his family,

when all the catastrophes about him

pointed in the opposite direction? He is

God. He could have stopped it if he had

wanted to. Did he want to find a way out

for Job? And, if not, was he a sadist? Did

he still care about Job in allowing all this

to happen to the poor innocent man? The

testimony of God and man was that Job

The Pink Professor 17

was perfect — and innocent Yet it all

happened, and no explanation was forth-

coming — except that good Job praised

God for having given and then taken away

again. No real answer was forthcoming

until rightattheend of thebook. If God did

not care about poor, innocent perfect

Job, why should Job love God? Of course

God cared for Job in a way which had

never occurred to Job. God justified Job

before all heaven by demonstrating Job's

steadfastness under duress.

It is true, of course, that there was still

a great deal in Job and Adam's worlds

which pointed to God's care in spite of

thorns and thistles and catastrophes. But

it is also true that there is just as much in

our world. At the beginning of Adam's

career the picture pointing to God's care

and love was clear. In that earlier world,

everything indicated only God's care and

omnipotence. Many things now pointed

away from this direction, and the area of

God's order had retreated into quite a

minute spot on the stage of life. So the

same sort of contradictions arose in Adam

18 Is Ulis a God of Love?

and Job's times as they do now. Thus, the

problem is by no means new. It is as old as

mankind.

Accordingly, the question presents

itself as follows: "Why should we be asked

to believe and trust in a good God, thereby

flying in the face of all—or at least a good

deal of — the contemporary evidence?"

One physicist put it as follows: "Why does

God value faith in him so much as to make

it the very condition, according to the

Christian way of life, of entry into his

kingdom? It seems most unfair to me. For

faith means believing right in the face of

contradictory evidence. Faith, to me, is

merely the result of forcing myself to

believe and trust in Godfs goodness and

care when a goodly part of the evidence on

hand leads me to reject such a trust. Most

preachers seem to preach faith as though

it were the faculty of believing something

which is not true — forcing oneself to

believe and act in spite of evidence to the

contrary. Why should God value a faith

which acts against all common sense and

evidence? Such action short-circuits one

The Pink Professor 19

of our highest faculties: the ability to

weigh evidence and then act on it. Faith

believes what it cannot see; it accepts

evidence it cannot weigh. Why should

God make as a condition for entering his

presence and kingdom our ability to short

circuit, abuse and render null and void

the very logic and evidence-weigjiing fac-

ulty with which the Bible says he endowed

us? God gave us logical ability. Why does

he demand that we act and think illogi-

cally in faith as a condition of entering his

kingdom?"

To return to our first line of approach

to this problem, then, the question is: if

the same Being planned both the good

and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly,

the sadistic and the loving, then all seri-

ous, logical, reasoning thought about him

becomes impossible with our thinking

faculties.

Another Approach

What does the Bible teach about this

apparent state of illogic? Remarkably

enough, neither the New nor the Old

20 Is Tliis a God of Love?

Testament sees any illogic in the situa-

tion! For example, in Romans 1, which

deals with this question in detail, Paul the

apostle teaches in a clear and uncompro-

mising manner that creation doesn't show

the slightest sign of contradiction in these

matters. It gives only one plain line of

thought: that the whole creation reveals

that God is a glorious, omnipotent Creator

— and nothing else. Paul says, "Because

that which maybe known of God is mani-

fest in them; for God has shown it unto

them. For the invisible things of him from

the creation of the world are clearly seen,

being understood by the things that are

made (nature), even his eternal power and

Godhead; so that they are without ex-

cuse."1

Thus, the Bible teaches, as do many

ancient sources, that when a man regards

nature, he is seeing, as in a mirror, the

Creator. The Bible doesn't ignore the ap-

parent problems of war, disease, poverty,

pain and chaos. It says quite a lot about

these subjects and even suggests cures

for some of them. But it does not see them

The Pink Professor 21

in the light in which my professor saw

them. The Bible does not think that these

things cloud the issue about the Creator,

as do many thinking people. Rather, it

teaches that the person who regards na-

ture as it is today and does not see the

power of a glorious, invisible Godhead in

nature—with no clouding of the issue by

the mixture of good and evil we all see —

that person is "without excuse* for not

believing! TTiis is surely a rather strong pill

to the modem intellectual who pleads

intellectual difficulties for his disbelief in

God.

Adding insult to injury, the Bible goes

one step further in teaching that not only

should a person see the Godhead, the

glorious Creator, when he sees mixed

nature, but seeing it he should be filled

with thanks to God, glorifying him for

revealing his wisdom and power in the

creation. So, apparently I should have told

my professor that he was not only "with-

out excuse" but also a "thankless" person

—if I had been ready to give him a biblical

view of himself. Somehow, I don't think he

22 Is This a God of Love?

would have appreciated that! Certainty, at

that time I did not have the necessary

maturity to say such a thing without

causing a major incident and a lot of

misunderstanding.

Paul continues the argument by

maintaining that a sense of wonder and

reverence should fill every observer of the

present confused creation. Offsetting this

wonder should be a sense of our own

vanity and foolishness, pervading us and

all who do not see the creation in this light.

Finally, all these feelings on observing

God's handiwork should make the ob-

server a Worshipper." If I had told my

professor that he had all the evidence

necessary to make him fell on his knees

and worship God, undoubtedly he would

have thougjit me a lunatic.

But Paul insists that if those reac-

tions to the creation don't take place in us,

we are abusing our reasoning powers. As

a consequence of this abuse we shall

become totally unable, in the course of

time, to use our higher reasoning faculties

and logical powers. Paul expresses this

The Pink Professor 23

thought by saying our "heart" will become

"darkened** and our "imagination** will

become "vain.** Also, he maintains that,

under such circumstances, even sexual

morality will die in us. Men will begin to

sexually abuse their own bodies—homo-

sexuality will arise, and normal sex rela-

tions will be stifled. Certainly my profes-

sor would not have appreciated this step

of the argument in the least for he ap-

peared to be a moral man.

In summary, at least parts of Holy

Scripture do not appear to sympathize

greatly with the intellectual difficulties

discussed here. The Bible says a look at

nature should be enough to make a per-

son a convinced, thankful, worshiping

believer. The question remains: why does

the Bible take this stand, seeing that at

least some thoughtful modern people in

the western world today have found that

the observation of the universe has by no

means made them worshippers or believ-

ers. (Here I am not thinking of Taoists,

etc.). On the contrary, those who have

studied the universe in the natural sei-

24 Is This a God of Love?

ences and other disciplines have often

experienced the most difficulties with re-

spect to worshipping and believing. In-

deed, quite a majority have simply turned

away from any thought of God.

Investigation of "that which is seen"

has not revealed to them the "unseen" but

has often turned them from believing in

anything divine and invisible. In no way

has it made them worshippers of some

unseen Being. For what they have per-

ceived shows so many paradoxes and

apparent contradictions that, judging the

unseen by their perception, it becomes

either ridiculous or superfluous for fur-

ther serious thought.

Some intellectuals conclude that if

the seen can give no credible picture of the

unseen, being a Christian is synonymous

with being a third-rate intellectual. They

assume that the Christianis intellectually

incapable of comprehending the contra-

dictions and paradoxes inherent in the

allegedly rather naive and intellectually

impossible Christian faith.

The Pink Professor 25

Clearly, the basic difficulty confront-

ing both the Christian and the intellectual

in aligning matters of belief with matters

of the intellect is intimately tied up with

the question of the origin of evil. If we could

account for the origin of evil without im-

pugning God's omnipotence, love and

holiness, then we would be able to go a

long way toward solving these difficulties.

A future chapter deals with this basic

problem of the origin of evil.

27

Chapter n

Thought and Action: Today

and Yesterday

Few realize how differently people

today use the process of thinking as com-

pared to individuals of a hundred years

ago. We live in an age of unprecedented

technology and, therefore, of technologi-

cal thought, so of necessity technological

subject matter must color today's thought

processes more than in the past. How-

ever, beyond a mere change of shades of

thought, entirely new thought processes

28 Is This a God of Love?

or modes have been adopted. Radical

changes in the very mechanism of thought

have occurred.

A century ago the average thinking

person considered life and the universe to

be orderly and contain meaning. He will-

ingly admitted that it was often difficult to

discover the meaning and order behind

things. But this fact did not disturb him in

his basis of thought namely, that order

and meaning were there if he could only

find them. Thougji human stupidity or

weakness might distort and slow down

the unraveling of meaning, the meaning

was still there. The book of the universe

and of life was hard to decode or read. But

the average thinker was still convinced

that it was a code capable of being deci-

phered if sufficient insight and intelli-

gence could be brought to bear on it

Based on such premises, huge efforts

were easily justified in the quest to deci-

pher the mysteries of the meaning and

mechanisms of life and the universe. The

overrun from this conviction can be seen

today in the momentum still present in

Thought and Action: 29

Today and Yesterday

such efforts as molecular biology and

space exploration, where laws, interpre-

tation and meaning are being sought.

However, it is not generally recognized

thatlarge areas of today's philosophy, art,

music, general culture and even theology

have abandoned the very premises which

launched the huge scientific effort which

has utterly changed the whole world of

technology and science. Most practicing

research scientists still workonthepremise

that nature is a code, and that life is a

meaningful system governed by law and

yielding its meaning to those who try hard

and with enough intelligence. But other

branches of knowledge such as those

mentioned above have more or less ar-

rived at the conclusion that life and the

universe are, in the last analysis, absurd

and devoid of meaning. Camus is an

example of this, for he received the Nobel

Prize for sayingjust this in his own elegant

way.

Thus, where our forefathers based

their thought processes on the premise

that life and the universe were meaning-

30 Is This a God of Love?

ful, thought processes today are governed

by exactly the opposite premise. Sartre,

Camus and other modern thinkers have

obtained the highest praise from today's

intelligentsia for elegantly and cleverly

conveying the premise that life, man and

the universe are meaningless. It naturally

follows, therefore, that suffering is mean-

ingless too.

Only in such a cultural atmosphere

were scientific theories as those of Darwin

able to take root and flourish both in

scientific and popular circles. For Darwin,

aided by Huxley, propagated the view,

using mountains of scientific detail as

evidence, that all life processes arose

spontaneously, without motivation or ra-

tionale, from randomness. In the last

analysis, randomness is congruent with

lack of order and, therefore, with lack of

meaning. According to this view, the mix-

tures of amino acids which are supposed

to have given spontaneous birth to life

showed no meaning or motivation behind

them. No volition guided these and other

building blocks into the codes of meaning

Thought and Action: 31

Today and Yesterday

which make up DNA as we know it today.

Tlie first nucleic adds and proteins alleg-

edly arose spontaneously from meaning-

lessness. This boils down to saying that if

there is any meaning in life or its origin at

all, that meaning must be based on sheer

meaninglessness. The same applies to

life's destiny — it must be meaningless

too.

Equating Fact To Non-Fact

Thus biological sciences are also

mixed up in the changes in thought pro-

cesses which have so radically altered the

modern world. Consider the lengths to

which scientific philosophers such as Sir

Julian Huxley have gone. He teaches all

who will listen that human and social

order flourish better if humans believe in

a god or support some sort of religion, for

their belief helps them respect each other.

Therefore, he advocates the propagation

of some sort of belief in a god external to

nature, even though he says that we, the

enlightened ones, well know that such a

belief does not correspond to the actual

32 Is This a God of Love?

facts of nature, but is thoroughly false and

deceptive. "Religion today is imprisoned

in a theistic frame of ideas," he claims,

"compelled to operate in the unrealities of

the dualistic world. In the unitary hu-

manistic frame it acquires a new look and

new freedoms. With the aid of our new

vision it has the opportunity of escaping

from the theistic impasse and of playing

its proper role in the real world of unitary

existence."1

Schaeffer rightiy observes: "Now it

may be true that it can be shown by

observation that society copes better with

life through believing that there is a god.

But in that case, surely optimistic hu-

manism is being essentially

unreasonable... if, in order to be optimis-

tic, it rests upon the necessity of mankind

believing and functioning upon a lie."

In other words, human society de-

monstrably needs to believe in a god to

function optimally. "All right" says today's

scientific philosopher, "let them cany on

with that belief if it helps them function,

even though, strictly speaking, it is a lie."

Thought and Action: 33

Today and Yesterday

Huxley has no objection to believing in

"anti-facts" if that allows man to continue

being optimistically humanist

Consider the chaos implicit in this

kind of thought pattern. Huxleyis ascien-

tific humanist who believes in "unitary

existence** — no divine existence outside

human existence. This means that there

is no thought (Descartes* proof of exist-

ence) besides human (or possibly animal)

thought. Yet the human thought he uses

is calmly allowed to be non-thought for

there is no objection to holding a non-god

to be a real godl

Surely everyone, including the ratio-

nalist believes that man is a rational

being, and that rationality is a part — an

integral part—of every man. To postulate

that man, in order to function, must be

non-rational, will divide and destroy his

very being. This is the position to which

scientific philosophy in some quarters —

and they are influential quarters — has

led us. Not only is this the main line in

present-day intellectual thought postu-

lated by gifted intellectuals like Huxley,

34 Is This a God of Love?

Camus and Sartre, but Fellini and

Antonioni of Italy, Slessinger of England

and Bergman of Sweden all actively pro-

claim the same "irrational rationalism" in

their films. Thus, the view that life is

meaningless is not merely the property of

the highbrows but is being claimed by so-

called lowbrows too. Popular mass educa-

tion is seeing to this. Nobel prizes are

doled out to those who are responsible for

teachings that are destroyingrational man!

How Faith Is Gained

How can one get a man to believe in a

non-fact in the same way that our fathers

believed in demonstrable facts? That is

the grand feat which modem thought has

nowaccomplished with Kierkegaard's aid.

A new methodology was developed espe-

cially for this one purpose — how to

believe in and be convinced of non-facts

and make them the basis of our faith.

The pattern is quite simple. If a man

can see no rational rhyme, sense nor

reason in life and its problems, if he

cannot find any way of decoding life's

Thought and Action: 35

Today and Yesterday

mysteries, then he must no longer seek

solutions by rational thought He must

close his eyes, throw life's textbook into

the comer, and take a "leap of faith" based

on non-facts. Thus non-facts are serving

the purpose formerly monopolized by facts

as a foundation for thought and faith.

Theology professors have faith in faith

rather than faith in a fact or a person.

It is vitally important to realize how

different this method of thought is, as

compared to that employed by the proph-

ets throughout Holy Scripture. In the Acts

of the Apostles,2 Paul is reported to have

reasoned with the elders with tears day

and night about matters of faith. He was

ready to throw his faith overboard if it did

not comply with the known facts. If the

body of the Lord Jesus Christ could have

been found after his death and resurrec-

tion, that one fact would have abolished at

one stroke all Christian faith and doctrine

forever. For the whole Christian position

(faith) turned (and turns) on this one

outstanding fact—the Lord rose from the

dead as he had promised before his death.

36 Is Tills a God of Love?

His body was transmuted from material

mortality to the supramortal—to immor-

tality. The disproving of this one central

fact — the pillar of faith which was at-

tested to by more than five hundred living

people at the time Paul wrote of the resur-

rection — would have destroyed Christi-

anity.

In those days Christians did not ar-

rive at their faith by a leap in the dark, but

by basing their thought processes — and

therefore their faith — on the fact of

Christ's resurrection. Any other way of

arriving at a real Christian faith stands

forever outside the testimony of Scripture

as well as that of living Christians.

The Exasperated Student

I once knew a student who disliked

higher mathematics, yet needed this

knowledge to pass examinations. After

many futile attempts to master a chapter

of a rather abstruse aspect of the subject

he threw the book into the corner of his

room, muttering that it was all bunk and

nonsense — to him. But it was not non-

Thought and Action: 37

Today and Yesterday

sense to everyone. For others had mas-

tered the same contents and extracted

meaning from them. Hie difficulty was

that the student, being unable to compre-

hend the message of the abstruse chap-

ter, concluded that it was absurd non-

sense. His conclusion was, unfortunately

for him, wrong.

Camus and others are saying, in

effect the same thing—life is absurd and

meaningless—to them. But other serious

people, although usually the first to admit

thatlife'sbookishardtodecipher, confess

to having found satisfying solutions to at

least some of life's problems. And their

conclusions are based on the facts given

by events of history such as the resurrec-

tion of Christ. And more and more prob-

lems and seeming paradoxes may be re-

solved into order by the careful and logical

application of thought

The Age Of Reason

Our much-prized age of reason has

regressed into an age of non-reason. The

age of scientific philosophy has reverted to

38 Is Tliis a God of Love?

an age of non or anti-philosophy. What

else can we conclude if leaders of modern

thought say that they're willing to believe

in the existence of a god who they really

don't think exists, in order to hold onto

their optimistic humanism? Learning and

philosophy are dependent upon the com-

munication of meaning and message. Is it

any wonder that communication between

man and man, generation and genera-

tion, is breaking down because the mes-

sage of the communication allegedly has

been found to be meaningless? In this way

philosophy today has become, in fact, an

anti-philosophy, just as the age of reason

has become an age of unreasonable blind

leaps of faith in a pitch black, unreason-

able and absurd world — of the kind

described by Camus.

The whole situation as seen by our

present world philosophy can be well

summed up in these lines by Hans Arp,

one of the original members of the Dada

group:

Thought and Action: 39

Today and Yesterday

The head downward

the legs upward

he tumbles into the bottomless

from whence he came

like a dish covered with hair

like a four-legged sucking chair

like a deaf echo trunk

half full half empty

the head downward

the legs upward

he tumbles into the bottomless

from whence he came

Francis Schaeffer comments: "On the

basis of modem man's methodology,

whether expressed in philosophy, art,

literature or theology, there can be no

other ending than this — man tumbles

into the bottomless. **

Picasso In Chicago

Several years ago I was standing in

front of the Civic Center in Chicago, where

stands a huge abstract sculpture by

40 Is This a God of Love?

Picasso, for which the mayor of Chicago

paid a large sum of money. While I was

determining from which angles it would

be best to photograph this piece of art, a

well-mannered Chicagoan quietly asked

why I was going to all this trouble. I said I

wanted to get the effect and meaning in

real life faithfully reproduced on film. His

answer was quite interesting. He said that

since in his opinion the work carried and

expressed no communicable meaning in

real life, it was a waste of time and good

film to try and reproduce it in a photo!

Atheistic Clergymen

Picasso again demonstrates the ten-

dency of modern art to detach itself from

the realities and facts of modem life and,

in doing so, to lose meaning for many

people. Theology, the proverbial laggard

in modem intellectual activity, has fol-

lowed philosophy, art and music, albeit at

a distance of some years.

I spoke to a young German clergyman

recently, just before he was to conduct a

confirmation service. In all earnestness

Thought and Action: 41

Today and Yesterday

he informed me that he, as a pastor,

believed that there was no God behind the

universe, although he would not yet dare

to say so openly in his church. He believed

in an atheistic theology. Theology being

the science of the study of divinity or God,

we have arrived at the position of a pastor

studying the science of no-God, which we

may equate to nothingness, for a god that

does not exist is nothing. So the conclu-

sion was that he had spent seven years

studying nothingness! I pointed out this

rather elementary fact to him. He re-

treated in some confusion, saying that I

had misunderstood him. He did not say,

he explained, that he believed in an athe-

istic theology, but rather in an a-theistic

theology. This was quite different he said,

for it meant that he could continue in his

theology without God—that is, a-theisti-

cally rather than atheistically! One won-

ders what sort of a shepherd of his flock

such a young man will make when he has

to comfort the dying and lay hands on the

sick and those wracked with pain.

42 Is Tliis a God of Love?

Consequences

But why bother to go into all this

theory and philosophy? If there is no

meaning behind the universe and life,

why try to find any?

The reason is simple. Man is a ratio-

nal being. To ask him to live in and for

meaninglessness or non-rationality is to

ask him to destroy himself. He goes into

despair and will not rest, if he is honest

with himself, until he is able to replace

meaninglessness with meaning and or-

der.

If contemporary rational thinkers —

being rational creatures — see injustice,

suffering, wars, violence and apparent

meaningjessness on every side, they can-

not rest until they have found a rationale

of some sort for it all. Huxley admits that

he is prepared to be an optimistic human-

ist on the basis of believing in a non-

existent god — one he knows not to be

there, but whose presence and existence

wemustpostulatetokeepourselveshappy.

Thought and Action: 43

Today and Yesterday

But the use of a non-rationality, a lie, to

keep a man rational and happy will surety

destroy the very basis of rationality!

No, if rational man is to remain ratio-

nal, he must use "reaT fact to find some

meaning for all the apparent chaos and

meaninglessness which surround him.

How can he rationally explain a beautiful

young mother dying of cancer while her

child is being bom? How can he avoid

despair on seeing men, women and chil-

dren mutilated by war, hunger and pesti-

lence?'Iriese are realities. Camus shrugged

his shoulders at such sights, sensitive as

he was, and said thatthe world and life are

meaningless jokes — absurd.

Jesus Christ saw similar suffering

and spoke of the beggar Lazarus covered

with sores and tying at the rich man's gate.

He had mercy and compassion on the

beggar. But he did not leave it at that and

shrug it all off, just as if life and Lazarus

were meaningless victims of a harsh, ab-

surd and cruel world. He interpreted

Lazarus' apparently meaningless suffer-

44 Is This a God of Love?

ing—and the rich man's riches too—and

told us in no uncertain terms in Luke

16:20-25 what they meant

But today's teachers of Christianity

have not given convincing answers to the

modern "meaningless" theorists, even

though Christ's interpretation of the

problem is on hand if they care to read and

digestitThefactis, of course, that Christ's

interpretation of Lazarus' suffering and of

other problems involving suffering is not

generally accepted today. The real reason

for the unwillingness to accept his inter-

pretation is coupled with an unwilling-

ness to accept the full fact and impact of

resurrection as evidenced in Christ's own

body. If we really believed in Christ's and

our own resurrection as unshakable facts,

we wouldn'thave the slightest difficulty in

accepting Christ's interpretation of the

"mystery" or the apparent "meaningless-

ness" of Lazarus' suffering. We have be-

come so used to equating non-fact with

fact that we find it difficult to follow rigidly

the logical consequences of believing in a

real fact! For, in Lazarus' case, the intro-

Thought and Action: 45

Today and Yesterday

duction of one overlooked fact, namely,

personal resurrection, reduced the hope-

lessness and meaninglessness of his suf-

ferings to meaningfulness.

Christ, as he explained Lazarus* case,

kept steadily before him the fact of per-

sonal resurrection. To the humanist by-

stander, tied up in Huxley's idea about

"unitary existence,** Lazarus as he lay

there full of sores was a senseless cruelty,

an example of callous torture of innocent

humanity. But if the promise of recom-

pense and correction — actually, the

migjity recompense of resurrection—is a

fact, then, of course, meaninglessness

resolves itself to meaning. For surely, if a

short term of suffering is the method by

which eternal non-suffering or bliss is to

be attained, then Lazarus was in for a

bargain—to put it mildly—and reason-

ableness is restored to apparent unrea-

sonableness.

Whatmodern philosophers have been

busy doing — indeed philosophers of all

time have practiced the same art — is

removing by unbelief certain facts from

46 Is Ttüs a God of Love?

the sad case of this suffering world, facts

given us by God himself to enable us to

handle the problem intellectually. Just as

the addition of an overlooked fact (resur-

rection) brought meaning into the mean-

inglessness in the case of Lazarus' suffer-

ing, so the removal of some fact will reduce

it from rationality and meaning to irratio-

nality and meaninglessness. We interpret

and diagnose on the basis of all the facts

of a case, that is, we appoint meaning in

the light of all relevant facts. But, remove

the facts, even the revealed facts of the

Bible, and meaninglessness and inability

to diagnose the case must result because

the resulting picture is incomplete.

Man Cannot live Without Rationality

It is obviously useless to argue rea-

sonably with anyone who does not believe

in meaning, and, therefore, in reason.

Many modem theologians and philoso-

phers are in just this position. But this is

not the case with a majority of the younger

generation. Young people, perhaps firm

believers in Camus and Sartre, are finding

Thought and Action: 47

Today and Yesterday

that they cannot help falling in love with

one another, just as their forefathers did.

Girls are still pretty and boys still at-

tracted to their beauty ofbody and psyche.

Tliey become aware that the remarkable

fact of falling in love with each other, in

spite of what they have learned about the

absurdity of everything, is not so absurd.

Love is a new, hitherto neglected fact and

it transforms their lives, giving them pur-

pose where they had imagined there was

none. The addition of one fact — human

love is a fact and not a non-fact—to their

lives has resolved some of life's meaning-

lessness to meaning.

The fact of love had been overlooked,

but now it must be taken into account in

the formula for life, just as in the case of

Lazarus the resurrection completely al-

tered the equation. The fact of love brings

new rationality and new meaning, just as

other facts — beauty in nature, order in

the biological cell, chemical laws in bio-

chemistry and electromagnetic laws in

48 Is This a God of Love?

valency help us to see order where previ-

ously, without knowledge of these facts,

meaninglessness reigned.

Is There A Place For "Blind Faith**?

Someone will be sure to object to this

kind of presentation, saying that after all,

the heavy emphasis on reason and ratio-

nality excludes the exercise of real faith as

the evidence of things not seen but hoped

for.

This kind of objection would be valid

if one believed that reason is faith. But we

have not said that. We have said that

evidence and facts should lead to faith

and that non-facts should not. To build

faith on a sound basis we must have

sound facts and not flabby non-facts or

meaninglessness. When the facts of a

case have been established beyond doubt,

for example, that Christ did, as an histori-

cal fact rise from the dead on the third

day, then we can start building faith on

that fact. For, by being resurrected after

death, as he had promised before dying,

he proved that he had knowledge which

Thought and Action: 49

Today and Yesterday

ordinary mortals do not possess about the

after-death state. In feet the predicted

and fulfilled resurrection proves that he

had divine foreknowledge, and his words

bore the weight attributable to divinity. If

his words on resurrection have thus been

proved to be divine, then surety what he

says about me, my death and my resur-

rection by his power will be divine. These

divine facts and words allow me sufficient

basis on which to build my faith by trust-

ing in and acting on them. This kind of

building on divine evidence and facts, this

trusting of them and their author, is

nothing less and nothing more than bib-

lical faith.

All that this really means is that we

are objecting to "blind" faith—leaps in the

dark. I am well aware that at times I have

no facts or evidence to build upon —

probably as Lazarus had no evidence as

he lay in misery. I am completely at sea in

regard to faith and belief in those difficult

situations when I do not know where I am

nor what I should do or think. And I am

often in that anguished position.

50 Is This a God of Love?

But it is when I am in such deep

waters that I take a new look at the facts

of divine illumination, help and guidance

which I have previously experienced.

Looking back, I see how God has kept his

good hand over me, even in allowing

apparent catastrophes. Recallingpast facts

and evidence, Ibasemyfaithforthefuture

on them and so reestablish trust for the

present where I cannot yet see the needed

evidence. But I cannot base trust on

nothing, meaninglessness or nothingness.

I cannot leap in the dark. I trusted him in

the past; he helped. Is that not fact and

evidence that the same will be true of the

present and the future, even in ultimate

catastrophe? These facts strengthen me

to trust him, the great personal Fact, now,

where I see no evidence. Such faith is by

no means blind. It is based on a hindsight

experience of him, on facts and on reason.

On this basis we treat the problem of

suffering.

51

Chapter m

The Atheistic & Agnostic

Positions

Are there any really irreconcilable

intellectual difficulties involved in believ-

ing in God, or are they only imaginary

when carefully examined? I don't believe

the ancients were on a lower intellectual

plane than we modems. Even though we

have excelled them in technology, we see

no evidence of intellectual lethargy on

their part Yet perhaps a considerable

percentage of them believed that the uni-

verse showed God's handiwork, whereas

most modems do not.

52 Is Ulis a God of Love?

This difference in approach is not in

any way a reflection on the total intellec-

tual capacity of either the modems or the

ancients. Rather, it is a reflection of the

increasing mass of knowledge with which

every human being in every succeeding

generation has to contend. An ancient

could have been a master of all that was

then known in the combined fields of

physics, chemistry, mathematics, geom-

etry, medicine, biology and algebra. Today

the mass of knowledge is so great that no

human brain can possibly cope with even

a fraction of it. Therefore, a fragmentation

of knowledge has occurred. But this mas-

sive increase has tended to take place in

the watertight compartments of the vari-

ous disciplines into which knowledge has

become divided in order to fit the capacity

of single brains. The result is that a syn-

thesis of all modem knowledge is rapidly

becoming less and less possible. This

perfectly natural tendency has had some

far-reaching consequences which must

The Atheistic and Agnostic Positions 53

be examined before we consider the ques-

tion of the origin of evil, since the two

problems belong together.

Just over a century ago, Darwin,

Wallace and Huxley propounded the view

that long time spans and chance reac-

tions, coupled with natural selection,

would account for all visible living nature

without the necessity of involving the

volition of any divinity. Huxley thought he

could prove this with his appeal to prob-

ability laws and his famous six monkeys

typing at random for millions of years on

six typewriters. The mathematical for-

mulae for the possibility of this view were

bandied around and the principle was

accepted as true. The natural and logical

consequence of the view was that the

postulate of divinity behind nature was

rendered superfluous from a mathematical

point of view. Immense time spans plus

chance and natural selection would do all

the work hitherto attributed to God. Thus

the world of science became a realm de-

pending on chance as a direct result of the

views of these men who believed their

54 Is This a God of Love?

conclusions were mathematically well

founded. Thus so called science was be-

lieved to have shown that there was no

place for the God-postulate. As we shall

see there is no scientifically founded reason

for accepting this view.

The patient work of scientists simul-

taneously competent in several disciplines

has been necessary to show that Darwin's

and Huxley's basic assumptions were

chemically, mathematically and biologi-

cally untenable.1 The vastness of today's

scientific knowledge makes it obvious that

it is a rare scientist who is able to do

original work in all these fields simulta-

neously. As a result, until recently no

synthesis between the various fields had

been achieved. Instead, water tight com-

partmentalization had developed. Biolo-

gists were unable to test the mathematics

of the problem in hand and chemists

could not critically assess the biologists'

work.

The biologists announced with all

due thunder that they could replace God

with chance and long time spans plus

The Atheistic and Agnostic Positions 55

natural selection. But no mathematicians

sufficiently versed in chemistry and biol-

ogy were forthcoming to assess what the

biologists were shouting about As a re-

sult one discipline, in this case biology,

has been building on false chemical, ther-

modynamic and mathematical premises.

The author has written elsewhere of the

catastrophic development of this kind of

compartmentalization of science.2

Because, in ancient times, learned

men possessed a good overall view on life

they could believe what the apostle Paul

said about the universe demonstrating

the nature of the Godhead. It agreed with

what they knew about mathematics and

biology.

What is generally not realized is that

modem man could believe, as did the

ancients, that the universe shows God's

nature — and still remain within the

bounds of modem scientific knowledge—

if his knowledge had not become so great

that it had to be wrongly compartmental-

ized. For when the various compartments

are carefully examined, the fact emerges

56 Is Ulis a God of Love?

that each still speaks one language today,

as it did thousands of years ago: that "the

heavens declare the glory of God," in spite

of the mixture of good and bad.3

So we can believe in a good, loving,

personal, holy and compassionate God

behinditall.Butwhataboutevil?Ishethe

author ofthat too?Tlie Koran teaches that

God made "the mischief of creation,** too.4

Is God the author of the mixed picture?

The Gothic Cathedral

Before the Second World War, I often

visited the huge and beautiful Gothic

cathedral at Cologne on the Rhine in

Germany. I used to admire this fine ex-

ample of the architecture of many hundred

years ago, with its graceful flying but-

tresses, a superb high-domed roof, its

famous two towers and the medieval

stained glass windows.

The more I admired the cathedral, the

more I found myself admiring the archi-

tects and masons who had originated the

whole structure. Over the centuries they

had patiently planned and built. All the

The Atheistic and Agjnostic Positions 57

graceful lines and sturdy foundations had

obviously been carefully planned by ex-

perts possessing sound knowledge of

building mathematics and mechanics as

well as à keen appreciation of how to

combine both to produce a beautiful total

edifice.

That it had so well withstood the

ravages of the centuries showed that the

workmen and designers not only under-

stood the principles behind beauty, but

also those of ensuring endurance. Their

craftsmanship was first class in every

way. Thus I found myself admiring our

forefathers as I admired their workman-

ship. Considering that they had few of the

mechanical devices a modem archi-

tect would consider essential for con-

structing such a masterpiece, the masons

and architects of that day certainly did

work wonders.

The structure ofthat cathedral, cen-

turies after it had been built showed

without the slightest doubt something of

the mind or minds behind it Its very

compact and organized design made one

58 Is Tliis a God of Love?

wonder what sort of drawing offices the

builders had at their disposal and how

they made their blueprints. To imagine

that such a well-conceived edifice simply

arose without enormous planning effort

would be to invite the just derision of

anyone remotely familiar with the con-

struction industry. Even calculations of

the various strengths of the construction

materials had to be made with old-fash-

ioned arithmetic and not just handed over

to a computer. Thus, an almost flawless

work showed sharply the minds and hands

of its creators. But the picture did not

always remain as clear.

Complicating The Issue

During the war, Cologne suffered

perhaps the most intensive air bombard-

ment of any city in Western Europe. Re-

portedly, bombs fell on approximately

every two square yards of the entire inner

city. Now the cathedral stands almost

directly in the railway station yard. Co-

logne is an important rail center, where

many lines meet, particularly those con-

The Atheistic and Agnostic Positions 59

nected with the huge and concentrated

Ruhr industrial area. Naturally, the allies

bombed the railroad yards on many occa-

sions and, not surprisingly, many bombs

missed their mark and destroyed nearby

housing and property. A number of heavy

bombs hit the cathedral, causing im-

mense damage.

In the fell of 1946 when I returned to

Germany for the first time after the war, I

was greatly dismayed at the sigjit of the

cathedral. It seemed symbolic of the rest

of Europe and her spirit. Almost irrepa-

rable damage had been done in five years

of combat. However, as I approached, the

two famous towers were still visible through

the morning mist

Practically every building in the vicin-

ity was razed to the ground; the cathedral

alone stood majestically in the midst of

the carnage. Coming nearer, however, I

could see huge, gaping holes in the sides

of the two towers. The holes revealed the

massiveness of the masonry, for any other

building receiving glancing blows from

such high-explosive bombs would have

60 Is This a God of Love?

collapsed entirely. But the cathedral,

though badly damaged, was not destroyed.

Hundreds of tons of concrete and bricks

had been used to plug a huge hole high up

in one tower, partially replacing the an-

cient masonry which had been blasted

away by an aerial bomb.

The ancient roof was indescribably

damaged. Huge rafters and beams, once

the cathedral's glory, hungperilouslydown

over the bomb-pocked floor. As the wind

blew through the wreckage, small bits

and pieces fell to the ground, building up

the piles of rubble. A hole marked the

place where the organ had once pealed

out its accompaniment to worship.

This miserable piece of chaos made a

deep impression on me as I stood in the

same place where I had once admired the

order and beauty of the original edifice. As

those memories of former beauty passed

through my mind, one idea never even

occurred to me. Never did I connect the

chaos of the formerly beautiful cathedral

with any inefficiency or designed purpose

The Atheistic and Agnostic Positions 61

on the part of the constructing architects

or masons! They had not built it for such

maltreatment

Similarly, I never began to doubt the

existence of the men who designed and

constructed the cathedral simply because

I could now see so many contradictions in

their handiwork. The place was a ruin.

But in its ruination it still bore the marks

of design. In fact its design and original

beauty were even more emphasized in

some respects. For the huge gaping holes

in the walls revealed the excellent con-

struction even better than did the remain-

ing undamaged walls. There was no fill or

rubbish behind false walls; it was all solid

handiwork built to last for centuries. The

migjity flying buttresses were still there;

the graceful Gothic arches were still

standing. But the solid design which was

built into the parts of the construction

normally hidden from view, was now laid

bare for all to see how well these craftsmen

had done their job.

In summary, even the general ruin

and chaos showed (1) the existence and

62 Is This a God of Love?

(2) the excellent work of both architects

and craftsmen. Furthermore, the ruined

structure itself showed in some ways even

better than the intact one the existence

and skill of the originators. In fact, the

whole picture reminded me of the purpose

of dissection in learning the anatomy of

animals, men and plants. In order to see

the order—and beauty—of some aspects

of biology, the destroyed or dissected ani-

mal or plant serves better than the intact

one. The cathedral had certainly been

dissected, and its entrails laid bare.

Inefficient Architects?

Obviously no one was going to accuse

the architects and craftsmen of designing

and building a ruin. The cathedral had

been constructed to last—almost forever.

Something had happened to it which had

not been planned or even conceived of.

And yet, even in its ruination, it was

generally quite easy to distinguish be-

tween the unplanned ruin and the actual

architecture. The cathedral at the same

time displayed both perfection and ruin-

The Atheistic and Agnostic Positions 63

ation—chaos and order mixed up inextri-

cably with one another, just as the world

around us presents a picture full of good

and evil, beauty and ugliness, order and

chaos, love and hate. No one in his right

mind ought to deny that life as we see it is

ahopeless hodgepodge of such ingredients.

However, we should remember that it

would be just as illogical to say that the

mixed picture of the cathedral proves

there was no architect behind it as to say

that the ruined, mixed picture of life we

see round about us proves that there is no

God behind it. My professor, rightly seeing

the hodgepodge before him, concluded

that therefore,

1. The edifice of creation has neither

mind or architect behind it. The atheist

maintains that because he sees nothing

but contradictions in nature, therefore

there is no God or mind behind it The

Germans call this a TDenkfehler^1, a short-

circuit in the logic of thinking. And so it is.

But it is one seldom seen through today.

2. No characteristics of a mind be-

hind nature can be distinguished be-

64 Is This a God of Love?

cause the picture is so mixed. This again

is a Denkfehler, because, as we have

already pointed out in the case of the

ruined cathedral, as long as any signs of

order have escaped complete destruction

in the general ruin, these "broken bits and

pieces remaining of the flying buttresses

and Gothic arches" will still show what

sort of men planned them. Thus, even

widely separated little pools of beauty,

love, joy, order, healthy bodies and virtue

which remain in the general hate, war,

destruction, chaos and ugliness of the

world of nature in which we live, still point

unflinchingjy to the architect who de-

signed and produced it before ruination

set in.

In fact, as seen in the cathedral, when

chaos replaces order, it can often lay bare

and dissect the original order better than

could the intact orderliness of an organ-

ism, or unruined nature itself. The study

of cancer cells — a good example of the

"ruination" to which living entities can

easily come—has laid bare many secrets

of the healthy intact cell which would

The Atheistic and Agnostic Positions 65

never have been suspected had we had

only normal healthy cells under our mi-

croscopes.

Summary

Therefore, we can maintain that even

though the creation around us is certainly

a hodgepodge of good and bad, even though

life certainty presents a badly mixed pic-

ture, it is still untenable to conclude with

my professor that this means there is no

architect behind it that everything arose

due to chance and long time spans. Any

little pool of love or order in the general

rubble heap of nature must lead us to a

mind or designer behind that pool, no

matter how small and smothered in rubble

it may be. Thus, a synthesis is possible,

and the teaching of Romans 1 that the

universe reveals enough of its Maker to

bring any logical person to his knees in

thankfulness and worship is confirmed.

67

Chapter IV

The Origin of Evû

Difficulties of the type discussed in

Chapter II led Baudelaire, the French art

historian and poet, to exclaim, "If there is

a God, he is the devil!" Such a statement

is the direct result of believing that man

has always been as he is, good and bad,

and was so designed originally.1 This is

the Muslim position.

Theistic evolutionists cannot avoid

the same difficulty when they maintain

that God used evolutionary processes to

produce the world of nature as we see it

today. If he did, then his methods made

the bad with the good, as Baudelaire

68 Is This a God of Love?

maintains, and he therefore must be the

devil as well as God. Everything pivots on

whetherwe believe nature was once "good"

and then subsequently ruined, whether

we believe in the fall of man as laid down

in Genesis. By tampering with the struc-

tural details of Genesis, we are likely to

garble the whole reason for the present

state of man — and the whole plan of his

salvation which will take him out of the

present disastrous mess. Genesis pre-

sents an integral whole on which the total

plan of Scripture is firmly founded.

Let us return to the cathedral illus-

tration of Chapter in. It is superfluous to

point out that all illustrations and analo-

gies are imperfect and have their weak-

nesses if pressed too far. Our illustration

of the cathedral is no exception. One of its

imperfections lies in the fact that the

architects who designed and built the

cathedral are long-since dead and there-

fore could not prevent the bombing of

their masterpiece. Then is God dead, too?

Was he dead when his masterpiece, na-

ture, was "bombed** into ruin?

Hie Origin of Evil 69

Today many assume God to be, in

fact, dead and resolve the question that

way. But this is a doubtful escape exit for

several reasons. Although it might explain

God's creative work in the past and its

subsequent ruination, it would never ex-

plain the present maintenance of nature

and creation. No dead God could take care

of that. Christians rightly believe that he

is not only the living creator, but also the

living maintainer of nature — and of us.

Byvery definition, the "God is dead" theory

will not fit in here, for maintenance im-

plies activity and life.

Trius the question nowbecomes: Why

didn't an almighty God who made, main-

tains and presumably loves his master-

piece, creation, prevent its "bombing?"

Here the parable of the cathedral can do

us no more service.

People who continually ask the ques-

tion, "Why doesn't God stop it?" are often

those who don't bother to ask what

"stopping it" would entail. Some specific

details must be examined before attempt-

ing to solve the greaterprinciples involved.

70 Is This a God of Love?

Consider any virtue of which a person

is capable; love, kindness, honesty, faith-

fulness, chastity, or any of the traits named

in Galatians 5 will do. Select a virtue

which pleases us all—love—and ask the

following question: "What is the nature of

love in particular, and virtue in general?"

Nature Of Love And Virtue

This subject of the nature of love and

virtue is vitally important because the

Christian way of life maintains that God

himself is love. Christians in the Western

world often do not realize the tremendous

import of this statement I have given

other religions, including Islam, some

thought, and have studied Islam's Holy

Book, the Koran, which designates Allah

as the compassionate, forgiving one. As

far as I know, nowhere in the Koran does

Allah figure specifically as an embodi-

ment of love. He may threaten, may be

merciful, omnipotent compassionate and

omnipresent. He may offer the faithful a

place in the gardens of paradise with as

many dark-eyed houris as they wish.2 But

The Origin of Evil 71

love never figures in the Koranic "revela-

tions" of Allah's nature. A designation of

God as "love" stands unique in the Bible.

Right in the center, then, of the Chris-

tian position is this virtue we call love. It

must be of vital importance for that very

reason. Nevertheless, I find myself at an

extreme loss when I am asked to rationally

explain anything at all about God's love. I

know that "God so loved the world that he

gave his only Son, thatwhoeverbelieves in

him should not perish but have eternal

life."3 But God, even though loving, is also

infinite. Therefore, he exceeds anything

my thinking apparatus can handle. So I

do not pretend to be able to plumb the

depths of either his love or character. To

think rationally about that love is far

beyond me.

I suspect it is for this reason that

when the Scriptures speak of God and his

love, usually man's love to a woman and

vice versa is used to drive home the point

at an anthropomorphic level. It is like

using real-life illustrations to clarify ab-

stract and abstruse points of chemistry to

72 Is This a God of Love?

non-scientific people. Thus, God provides

information on himself and his love in a

human setting in order to really commu-

nicate with us. The information we thus

obtain by "cutting down the high voltage

of God's love" to the "low voltage of human

love,* we will then apply to our main

problem.

The first question in analyzing hu-

man love is: "How did this love between

bride and bridegroom originate?" The

historyofmostsuch relationships provides

the answer. The young man met the

young girl one day and sooner or later

began to feel attracted to her. The at-

traction is better experienced than de-

scribed. Very often the girl feels attracted

to him at the same time, although she

might at this stage be more hesitant to

display her feelings. Often, he begins the

action side of the relationship by looking

for suitable ways to court her. But until

wooing is begun, the whole affair is lop-

sided. A one-sided relationship in which

The Origin of Evil 73

attentions are not returned can be ex-

tremely painful. Certainly it is neither

happy nor satisfying to either party.

At this stage there is one burning

question which every prospective bride-

groom would like answered as soon as

possible: "Does she love me?" Is my attrac-

tion to her reciprocated?" One purpose of

courtship is to give the girl a chance to

settle the question in her own mind. For,

once she notices the man's attentions

and, therefore, attraction towards her,

she has to make a momentous decision:

"Can I return his affection?" If she thinks

that she may do so, then she must decide

if she can love him. Here she must rely on

her own heart as well as on her common

sense and the principles of life to which

she adheres. After due consideration, she

may decide she does. An understanding is

reached between the two. Aradiant couple

emerges, and great are the happiness and

joy of two hearts that have entrusted

themselves to one another in mutual love

and faithfulness.

74 Is This a God of Love?

In order to answer the question why

a God of love just doesn't "stop it* we must

analyze this process of falling in love more

closely in order to draw some reason out

of what often appears to be an entirely

unreasonable happening.

First the young man must court the

girl of his choice. She will be unhappy if he

doesn't and he will be unmanly if he

doesn't know howl Now, courtship is a

very fine art besides being a very neces-

sary one. Some of our finest poetry, music

and art have arisen as its by-products!

Most important perhaps, is that it is a so-

called gentle art, which brings us to a

cardinal point in our analysis.

Tlie moment force takes the place of

wooing, both love and the joy of love cease.

They are often replaced by hate, recrimi-

nations and misery. For the whole struc-

ture of love is built on absolute mutual

consent and respect for the character and

sovereignty of the loved one. In other

words, the structure on which human

love between a bride and a bridegroom is

squarely based is freedom to love.

The Origin of Evil 75

Most civilized societies recognize pre-

cisely this structure in their marriage

services. The two persons intending mar-

riage are both given the public opportu-

nity of making a free-will consent in say-

ing "I will" before the assembled congrega-

tion. Old Testament cultures stand for

exactly the same principle, as the follow-

ing well-known story emphasizes.

Rebekah

When Eliezer, Abraham's servant,

asked Rebekah to become Isaac's wife

(Gen. 24), he became so assured that he

had found God's choice for his master's

son that he was ready to cut comers in the

process of taking the bride home. The

evidence that Rebekah was God's choice

was so overwhelming that he wanted to

speed things up, intending to take off

immediately with the girl and forget about

all the formalities or ceremonies.

However, Rebekah's relatives saw

immediately that this was no basis for

marriage, even though the Lord might be

initWhatagood thing itwould be ifyoung

76 Is This a God of Love?

couples saw this point too, instead of just

starting to live together with no ado or

ceremonies. It is to emphasize the neces-

sity of mutual public consent before love

and lifelong married joy, the greatest rela-

tionship in our earthly life, that RebekarTs

relatives got together and said that even

though God might be in it all, Rebekah

must first be publicly questioned on the

matter. She had to give her own decision

and opinion before they would let her go to

Isaac. So they called her in before the

family and their friends to ask whether

she wanted Isaac. Only after she had

given public consent based on her own

free-will decision, did they agree to mar-

riage. They knew that no other basis was

good enough, even though it was obvi-

ously God's will even without such public

decision-making.

The Amnon And Taxnar Affair

Thus, the first point arising out of this

analysis of the basis of bride-bridegroom

Tlie Origin of Evil 77

relationships and love is that such a

partnership is based firmly on public

mutual consent or free will.

The second point deals with the con-

sequences of neglecting the above point.

The shocking ulove affair" between Amnon

and Tamar (2 Sam. 13) illustrates this

danger in a crass way. Amnon fell madly

in love with the king's beautiful daughter

Tamar. He was so infatuated with the fair

girl that he just could not wait to woo her

and win her consent. By guile, Amnon

arranged to be alone with the girl. Feign-

ing sickness, he received the king's per-

mission for Tamar to come and cook for

him in his apartment Having got rid of

everyone else, he proceeded to force the

poor girl because hewas so madly "in love"

with her. "Love" that cannot wait to woo is

abnormal. It often metamorphoses before

our eyes into lust**

The consequence of this haste and

trickery was that Amnon*s "love** turned in

a twinkling into hate for her. The eventual

result was murder, for her relatives had

Amnon murdered later for his brutality

78 Is TTiis a God of Love?

and treachery. Tamar suffered heartbreak

and "remained desolate in her father's

house" (2 Sam. 13:20).

Free Choice

In order to love in this sense — not

merely physical union, which can result

from lust—we must experience the mu-

tual attraction and union of body, soul

and spirit in an exclusive personal rela-

tionship.

If the basis of mutual consent in the

love relationship is removed, if there is no

freedom to love, if freedom is replaced by

force, then all possibility of loving is re-

moved. Love can be replaced then by its

opposite — hate. This implies, of course,

the further step of logic: Where there is

true freedom to love, there is also freedom

not to love. If this freedom to say "no" were

not really present, there would ipso facto

be no freedom to say "yes" and to love. The

ability to say "no" must be just as genuine

as the ability to say "yes" if true mutual

consent is to be achieved as a basis for

love.

Hie Origin of Evil 79

As we have seen, the Bible teaches

that God himself is love, and his love is

often likened to the bride-bridegroom re-

lationship. Our third conclusion is that, if

his love to us is to be compared in some

way with our human nuptial love, then

the principles governing the two loves can

be expected to be comparable in some

ways. We should expect God, on this

basis, to be the grand wooer. That being

the case, we should expect him to be

awaiting our response to his wooing. To

receive and experience his love we should

expect the mutual-consent basis to de-

cide everything — my consent to him in

answer to his "attraction to and love for"

me.

Thus, we conclude that if God is love

in this sense of the word, he will be looking

for answering love from me. Love is only

satisfied if it is returned. He woos us by

many means, mainly by having sent his

Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, to

justify us by dying and being resurrected

for us.

80 Is This a God of Love?

Being love, we would not expect him

to demand or attempt to force love. That

would be a contradiction. The very at-

tempt to do so would destroy the basis of

all love. As our true lover he does every-

thing to show the true nature of his love—

even to becoming a fellow man, heir to our

lot as well as bearing our sin. Jesus was

serious about his love — serious even to

death.

The Case Of The Robot

Consider one more vital point What

would have happened if God had so con-

structed man that he could not make a

true free-will decision himself, but was

only capable of automatically doing God's

will, just as a lock opens when one turns

the correct key in it? If man had been so

constructed that, when a certain "button"

in his mind was depressed he delivered

"love" automatically, would real love be in

fact delivered? Of course the answer is

negative. Such a person would be "con-

Hie Origin of Evil 81

genitally* devoid of free will and therefore

incapable of love and virtues in any real

sense of the word.

None of us would be interested in

"loving" the outward form of a partner

who, every time we touched a certain

"button," put chocolate in its mouth or

stroked its hair or automatically intoned

the sentence "I love you." If such a system

were conceived or constructed, it would

have to be subhuman or machine by

nature. For to try to construct it so that it

delivered "virtue" or love" on command

would of necessity mean that it be devoid

of humanity, and therefore personality,

and as a result it could deliver nothing of

the kind. Assume that God, in order to be

sure of our love and to make sure that we

were "virtuous" in everyway, made us like

marionettes. He would have taken from

us the possibility of really exercising our

free will in order that we might not exer-

cise it wrongly. Wanting to be so sure that

we loved him and ourfellowmen, he would

have made us so that we could not do

otherwise. Whenever he pressed abutton,

82 Is This a God of Love?

we would "deliver the goods," just like a

vendingmachine. Howcould suchasetup

involve real love in any way?

The Grand Risk

This brings us right up to the great

principle. If God wanted creatures that

realty loved him and their fellow-beings,

then he was, by the very intrinsic nature

oflove, obliged to recognize the fact (though

it sounds strange to us to use such

phraseology and maintain that God was

forced to do anything — his own moral

nature brings with it the consequence

that he will or must act according to that

nature) that love and virtue demand ab-

solute freedom to love and exercise free-

dom. Such a necessity lies in the very

structure oflove and, indeed, of any other

true virtue. Thus, to create the possibility

oflove, God had to create free personali-

ties just like himself, for he is love and he

made us to love.

For God to plan at all for true love

involved the built-in risk of the proposed

free partner-in-love not loving at all. To

The Origin of Evil 83

have built the love-partner so that he

would be congenitally obliged to respond

would have been to destroy the whole

purpose of designing a creation where love

could reign. God wished—and still wishes

—to set up a kingdom of love on earth and

in heaven. But to do so involves the above-

outlined risk of the free partners choosing

not to love, but to do the opposite of their

own free will — or even to hate. The

practical result of being indifferent to or

hatingis the same from the divine partner's

point of view. For there is no positive

response to his love in either case. And

love aims at a response of love. Thus,

either love grows by responding, or it dies.

Almsgiving And The Socialist State

Exactly the same risk is involved in

planning any and every virtue. Take, for

example, the virtue of almsgiving. In Tur-

key one sees hundreds of needy beggars.

There are the blind holding certified pho-

tographs of their suffering wives and chil-

dren needing support. There are those

lying in the gutters, with their misshapen

84 Is Tliis a God of Love?

bodies uncovered so that all who pass by

can see they are not counterfeiting. There

is the poor man who has his feet where his

shoulder should be, loudly and slowly

repeating selected passages from the Ko-

ran. There is the old man suffering from

Parkinson's Disease, whose saliva con-

tinually runs over his poor old dirty face as

he holds out an empty trembling hand all

day long. Seeing this misery causes one to

exercise compassion and give a coin so

that they can eat a slice of good Turkish

bread. Naturally one is convinced that

something much more fundamental

should be done for these thousands of

people so representative of suffering hu-

manity. But a coin will at least guarantee

that the immediate plague of gnawing

hunger will be assuaged.

So one gives something to the poor

mother sitting in rags underneath the

mailbox at the post office, with her week-

old, unwashed baby on her ragged lap. In

so doing one exercises a virtue — that of

almsgiving. The immediate reward is an

extra-fervent prayer to Allah for the giver's

Tlie Origin of Evil 85

salvation. The joy on the recipient's face

would be reward enough. To exercise any

virtue is afree-will operation which brings

joy to the giver and to the receiver.

If, however, beggars are cared for by

taxes, and the city authorities send me a

tax bill to help support the poor and

needy, then I must pay. It may be a good

thing to organize matters in this way.

Many maintain that this method is less

degrading for the poor and that the bur-

den is more equally distributed. I agree

with them in this respect But let us be

clear about one of the overlooked conse-

quences.

In paying my taxes which are used to

support the poor and the needy, I no

longer exercise the virtue I did when I gave

the alms to the pooryoung mother. I might

have paid about 10 dollars in taxes for the

poor, or I might have given the young

woman 10 dollars to buy her baby some-

thing better than dirty rags. The sum of

money involved is irrelevant. In one case

I exercise the virtue of almsgiving (and

reap a blessing) while in the other case I

86 IsThisaGodofLove?

must pay my taxes, grumbling perhaps

about the waste perpetrated by the bu-

reaucracy of the tax office, with no con-

sequent blessing, even though I may be

perfectly right.

In one case I exercise no virtue. In the

other case, where I give of my own free will

in almsgiving I exercise a virtue—simply

because I do not have to act Therein lies

the difference: forced charity" is no char-

ity—and "forced love" is no love. Love and

virtue melt in the grip of force just as ice

melts under the pressure of a vice.

If I force my children to be "good"

when we are out visiting, they may be

outwardly exemplary — sometimes they

are! I am thankful for this, but I recognize

the feet that most parents will be familiar

with — that this "goodness" may not be

even skin deep! Force itself, unaided, can

make no one good and virtues tend to fade

away in its presence.

These considerations disclose one of

the fatal weaknesses of our increasingly

socialized world. All "charity" and "works

of love" tend to become organized by the

The Origin of Evil 87

state, which rightly wishes to eliminate

the humiliation to which the poor are

subjected in accepting certain kinds of

"charity.** Thejoy and virtue of true charity

and love disappear immediately when the

forced tax replaces the free-will offering.

The Lord Jesus Christ himself remarked

that it was more blessed to give than to

receive, thus emphasizing the "blessed-

ness** or happiness accompanying the

free act of giving.

The exercise of any real virtue en-

nobles and enriches the character, giving

real joy and radiance to those practicingit.

Thus the socialized state often robs its

citizens of the flights of exuberance to

which free exercisers of love and charity

are heir.

George Mutter's Orphanages

Over a century ago in Bristol, En-

gland, George Müller set up his orphan

homes which were run and staffed en-

tirely by the free-will offerings and services

of Christians in sympathy with his aims.

Witnesses of Muller*s work said that these

88 Is This a God of Love?

homes full of the victims of suffering were

real havens of love, joy and rest to thou-

sands of orphans. Today many such or-

phanages (not Muller's) have been taken

over by the state. The state institute is

often merely a matter of rates and taxes,

and the person in charge is sometimes a

career person who makes no attempt to be

a "mother" or a "father" to the children.

Often the atmosphere of such an institu-

tion is as cold and devoid of love as the

concrete bricks of which it was con-

structed. Scientists have shown that chil-

dren in such institutions die from lack of

love as often as they die from disease.4

The welfare state, in taking over ev-

erything to remove a few real abuses, too

often kills love and the other virtues which

make up the atmosphere of a home. Re-

moving the freedom of service, the volun-

tary basis, causes love to evaporate. Not

only do the children or inmates of these

institutions suffer. The ennobling of

character which the voluntary staff mem-

bers would themselves receive by free-will

service is lost by their becoming merely

Tlie Origin of Evil 89

career people. The more the world loses

this rigjit to freely exercise true charity,

the harder, colder and more bitter it must

become.

This disastrous effect is seen in the

character of most socialized nations. In

fact, it is producing just what Hitler pro-

duced in Germany by the same means:

de-personalization—people who may do

their duty, but who will not raise a longer

to help close a concentration camp if it

involves personal risk. Their characters

have not experienced the ennobling,

strengthening effect which results from

the exercise of freedom. Hitler was a living

example of a man naive enough to attempt

to demand and command the love and

affection of his people. He may have real-

ized at the end that love evaporates under

just such pressure. The strength of

character necessary to withstand any ty-

rant is not likely to be built in any gen-

eration without the ennoblement of

character resulting from long exercise of

the various human virtues we have dis-

cussed. Such strength will also overcome

90 Is This a God of Love?

the various vicissitudes of life which often

complicate the career of anyone strong

enough in will to be ready to suffer for his

own conscience's sake.

The tendency today is to push every-

thing onto the community, resulting in

private character impoverishment. We all

know the person who "doesn't want to get

involved." The second tendency, contin-

gent partly on the first, is tobringup every

child to conformity, so that only the will of

the community and majority counts. Thus

the steel of a private conscience, indepen-

dent of conformity to the mass, does not

develop. In Hitler's Germany, this was

seen at its extreme development People

saw corpses dropping out of vans coining

from a concentration camps as they passed

through a big city. But fear had so eroded

characters that no one did anything — it

was too dangerous to get involved!

In Chicago a few years ago I was

walking from the Chicago and Northwest-

em Railway Station as I saw a man in a car

literally plow his way through a group of

old ladies as they crossed the street on a

TTie Origin of Evil 91

pedestrian crossing with a green ligfit. He

knocked one old lady down, injuring her.

I took the license number of the car, which

did not stop, and asked for witnesses.

Many young women and men going to

work in a neighboring shoe factory had

seen the incident But all backed away,

muttering something about not getting

involved. I didn't get a single witness.

The idea of the community providing

for everyone's need "from the cradle to the

grave" may be excellent from a purely

humanitarian point of view. But, insofar

as it takes away personal initiative, the

realization of the scheme will never pro-

vide sterling characters ready and willing

to suffer for conscience's sake and to

stand alone, if necessary.

The Creation« Seen And Unseen

The Bible reports that when God

contemplated the creation of the worlds

seen and unseen he wished to construct

them so that they reflected his very own

nature and character. To do this, he had

to build on freedom of action. He is free, so

92 Is This a God of Love?

he had to make man and angels free too.

Man was made ttin his image"—that is, as

a free personality, just as God himself is.

For even "his service is perfect freedom**

and therefore founded and maintained in

love. Accordingly, the angels who serve

him, including their chief Lucifer, the

light-bearer, were given natures capable

of genuine love to their Creator and to-

ward their fellows. They were capable of

wooinghis love and being wooed by him so

that the perfect joy of love could reign in

that kingdom. But this very possibility

had to include the option of rejection.

They were no puppets.

The Bible reports, quite as a matter of

fact, that a large proportion of the unseen

host showed that it really was capable of

the joy ofthat kingdom of love and—by a

very real proof— of rejection! Therefore,

Lucifer did, in fact, show that he could

love, in that he began, for reasons of pride,

to reject the one perfect lover, his Creator.

Turning his back on Him, who is the sole

good, Lucifer became the epitome of the

bad. So arose the cursed, loveless and

The Origin of Evil 93

hateful ones who, in the exercise of their

characters now turned away from the

good toward the bad and proceeded to

destroy the good creation. Men become

"devils" by exactly the same process. Ob-

viously God, his nature being love, did not

immediately take away all freedom of

action and choice from his creatures, thus

removing the possibility of aretum to love.

He allowed them still further freedom of

choice, which meant in their case, still

further destructive activities being per-

mitted. If he had taken away this possibil-

ity of freedom of choice at the first sign of

rejection of love, he would have destroyed

any further possibility of a return to love.

So he has given us all a long time of

freedom of action, that is, freedom to love,

so that the kingdom of love can still begin

again to rule, if man and angels want it. To

have "stopped it all" at once by the strong

hand of "dictatorship" would automati-

cally have destroyed the very purpose for

which the Creator had created his uni-

verse — in order to set up a kingdom of

love in the seen and the unseen.

94 Is This a God of Love?

Therefore, this very existence of evil in

a world created by an almighty, but also a

loving God actually illustrates that the

good and the virtue in it are genuinely

good. Love in such a kingdom really is love

and not anything else. Sometimes it is

taught that love is a covert form of egoism,

etc. Hie state of our fallen world really

shows this to be impossible — the love of

God in a world ofblood is genuine enough!

Destroyers and haters usually want

company in their activities. So when the

chief, Lucifer, the ligjit-bearer, had be-

come the destroyer and the hater, he

immediately approached Eve to make her

and her husband become a part of his

company of destroyers. The pair was also

capable of true love. They possessed true

freedom of choice, as is shown by the

actual choice they made. They, too, turned

their backs on the good, automatically

becomingpolarized to the chronically bad.

So the whole seen and unseen creation of

love became a creation of the wrong choice

—the choice which turned its back on the

source of all ultimate good. In leaving

Hie Origin of Evil 95

open a chance for seen and unseen cre-

ation to return to the ultimate good, God

did not "stop thebad.wThe free choice was

still left open, leaving ruination and its

cause still intact. That is the reason why

God allows it — to provide a genuine

chance for the return of love in general.

The Dignity Of Man

But does not all this lead to one main

conclusion? Does it not all go to show the

truly high esteem in which God holds his

creatures, man included? It means that

God really takes our decisions, our

thoughts and our selves seriously. He

even goes to the lengths of wooing us to

make our decisions ourselves. He does

not so construct us that we are puppets

who have all decisions programmed —

even though many physical processes

within the body are pre-programmed.5

True love is, in this respect always the

same—it always esteems and respects its

partner. It takes the partner seriously.

The same thoughtalso expresses why

God bothers to woo men by the foolish-

96 Is This a God of Love?

ness of preaching"6 and not by sending, as

he could, mighty angels with his message.

Perhaps they would only succeed in terri-

fying poor humanity if they appeared in

their supernal splendor. God's purpose is

to win man's simple trust and confidence,

to win our devotion and genuine love.

Therefore, he uses the natural methods

available to win our decision for him. If he

overawed us in any way, that might make

craven slaves of us rather than whole-

hearted sons. If he were to browbeat us

into submission, he would only gain what

Hitler did — the abject, groveling fear (if

not secret hatred) of his would-be part-

ners.

Thus a God of love avoids like the

plague the dictator's methods in dealing

with man, the object of his love, and uses

the lover's better method. It is very funda-

mental to see that one cannot terrorize

people into love. Consider the miracles

Jesus performed in this light. He never

used a show of divine power in healing to

frighten people into belief. In most cases,

after doing some mighty healing deed, he

The Origin of Evil 97

admonished those who had seen the deed

or experienced it to keep veiy quiet about

it Jesus' warning "tell no man" is almost

proverbial in this respect Hie fact is, God

does not wish to force our intelligence or

our will to reduce us to the state of cring-

ing slaves. He wants redeemed sons, who,

of their own free will, love, respect and

gladly serve him.

The Degree Of Man's Freedom

Thus we conclude that man must be

free indeed if he is ever to be able to love

indeed. There is a consequence to all this

which the reader will have surely noted

already. It is this: Is man so free that God

has abrogated all authority overhim? Can

man do exactly and precisely as he likes as

long as he likes so that he can be said to

possess a totally unfettered freedom in all

directions as far as he himself chooses?

Need he never fear that his Creator will

intervene — all in the interests of man's

ability to love and exercise virtue?

Although the Bible teaches that man

has a bona-fide free will and can certainly

98 Is Tills a God of Love?

say no to his Creator's will and plan (the

very state of our poor world shows that

this is de facto the case), yet it teaches too

that there are limits to that freedom just

as there are limits to God's wooing activi-

ties of man. These wooing limits, it will be

remembered, were founded in God's

counsel from his side and, in time, from

man's side. In the first place, God in his

inscrutability sets a time limit for his

wooing of our free will. Thus it cannot be

said that we have perfect free will to accept

or reject his wooing at any time. Our free

will interacts with his free will to woo us

and if he chooses to stop the courting

process, our free will can do precisely

nothing about the newsituation. Hereitis

no longer unfettered. Second, repeated

rejection of the goodness of God's courting

sears the psyche of man, rendering it less

and less receptive. This, too, is a process

we cannot alten it is like the second law of

thermodynamics at work in our inward

man, and our free will cannot alter it.

Tlie same principle applies through-

out man's kingdom in its relationship to

TTie Origin of Evil 99

man's Creator. Man can say no to his

Creator for a certain time by expressing

free will. But this process of saying no of

our own free will to God interacts with

God's free will and may produce a no from

his side. For us dependent creatures this

is the same thing as judgement superven-

ing after grace. We all can turn our backs

on him and run away from him and his

goodness — until we reach what may be

looked upon as the end of our tether. The

tether represents the change in God from

grace to judgement. How long that may

take in each individual case of God's

dealings is unknown to his creatures.

This state of affairs is well seen in the case

of the apostle Paul on the Damascus road.

Paul had enjoyed perfect unfettered free

will to rebel against Christ and had done

so very successfully, until evenhe reached

the end of the tether God had allowed him.

Then God intervened severely, blinded

him and reduced him to the dependence

of a child in his helplessness. But even in

a drastic intervention of this type, the

judgment of God was mixed with great

100 Is Tliis a God of Love?

mercy and it led to Paul's seeing the grace

of God in restricting his field of unfettered

free will. But perhaps his free will in the

strictest sense of the term wasnottouched.

Perhaps his knowledge was increased.

If we do not recognize some definite

limits to our freedom, we risk abrogating

God's ultimate authority and, indeed,

sovereignty. Yet these limits in no way

alter the conclusions we have drawn about

the vital nature of freedom if we are to be

able to love — or to rebel. One reason for

this fact is that we ourselves do not know

where the limits we are talking about lie.

Therefore we are, to all intents and pur-

poses, unlimited in our freedom from our

own perspective. From our own point of

view we are free to act wander, rebel or

love as under-sovereigns within a small

area of God's sovereign kingdom. It is just

within this area of real unrestricted free-

dom that real love and virtue can and do

rule in us. Outside these unseen limits are

areas of judgment and no-freedom. But

since they are unknown to us, they are, for

The Origin of Evil 101

practical purposes, fictitious for us and

thus of no concern in our decisions to

rebel or to love.

The very fact that man has never

succeeded in devising a formal proof of

God's existence shows how completely

God can and does hide himself and his

limits from our eyes. This being the case,

most men act within the area of their own

lives as completely free agents as far as

their intelligence is concerned.This makes

their decisions in that frame of mind

completely free will and therefore valid

from the point of view of exercising true

virtue. We conclude, then, that the limits

God has set for all mankind do not alter

our decisive free will and its accompany-

ing power of love or rebellion. These very

limits maintain God's sovereignty while

allowing man free agency in the area ofhis

own consciousness.

One more thing deserves mention at

this point the "tether" we have referred to

as God's restricting hand on our free will

should not be regarded as something

fixed or static. It is not of a set permanent

102 Is Tliis a God of Love?

"length.** It is my belief that the more

devoted a man is to God's will for him, the

longer the tether" will become. That is,

the greater will be the radius of freedom of

action. To stick to our analogy of a tether,

we might say that its elasticity depends

upon our will being congruent with his

divine will. To use the words of the apostle

Paul, to "win Christ" and to attain to his

confidence in us is the same thing as

saying that the more we attain to the

width, depth and breadth of God's will, the

more we attain to his sovereign freedom

too. As one prayerbook has it "His service

is perfect freedom."

103

Chapter V

The Problem qfRebtdLding

Just what would we expect a God of

love to do after his creatures had chosen

the wrong road — turning their backs on

the only good?

The Scriptures say that even before

the wrong choice had been taken either by

man or angels, God, because he is omni-

scient knew all about it. He had even

drawn up careful plans in advance to cope

with the situation that would arise, even

though he was in no way responsible for

it nor did he cause it (cf Rev. 13:8, Eph.

1:4, Heb. 4:3, 1 Pet. 1:19-20).

104 Is This a God of Love?

Tills last met—that God, ifhe is God,

must obviously have been omniscient

with respect to the fall long before it

happened — has been a stumbling block

to many. Actually, few real intellectual

difficulties are involved in this matter if it

is considered carefully.

If I observe a person carefully over a

period of time, I may notice some of his

little idiosyncrasies. He may say "Ah,M for

example, as a prelude to every difficult

word he has to pronounce. Or he may

twitch his eyebrows (or his ears) before

relating a good joke. Gradually I learn to

predict just what he is going to do before

he actually does it. My previous observa-

tions allow me to do this with a fair

amount of accuracy.

However, my ability to foretell his

actions in no way makes me responsible

for them when he acts. Similarly, the met

that God was able to foresee what Adam

and Eve, the angels and mankind in

general, would do, does not necessarily

implicate him in the sense that it makes

him responsible for initiating their actions

The Problem of Rebuilding 105

and choices. The only implication is that

involved in his having given them a glori-

ously free choice of action in order to

create the possibility of their love.

The Problem Of The Consequences

At this point many will maintain that,

if God saw in advance the chaos, misery

and suffering which would certainly fol-

low the gift of the possibility of love, why

did he proceed with his plans to create.

Washenotrathersadistictohave persisted

in these plans, knowing the consequences

in advance?

In principle, the same type of ques-

tioning arises every day in our own lives,

but seemingly we don't recognize this fact.

Consider, for example, the decision we

must make on whether to marry. Even the

marriage ceremony emphasizes rather

drastically that the same question is in-

volved, for the clergyman says our mar-

riage vows are binding until death us do

part. Surely there is scarcely greater grief

than that experienced by a realty devoted

couple when separated bydeath. We could,

106 Is Ulis a God of Love?

of course, avoid this terrible grief by the

simple expédient of not creating a mar-

riage relationship at all! Avoid marriage

and its love relationship and no grief of

parting by death will ever overtake you.

Yet, we rightly go into marriage with

our eyes open. We know that in normal

circumstances, death and all its sorrows

will overtake us and will separate us. Most

of us fear this more than we could ever

say. In spite of all this we marry, because

we believe that the joy of love and the

ennoblement of giving ourselves to an-

other in the abandon of devotion even for

a day (and forty or fifty years pass like a

day) is better than no love at all. It is

written of Jesus Christ that he endured

the sorrows of death on the cross for the

sake of the joys which would result from

the sorrow.1 The same principle is involved

here. The joy of love, even "short" love,

because it stems from a God of love,

compensates for even the sorrows of a

cruel death such as that which Jesus

suffered for all mankind, and the death

which separates all lovers.

The Problem of Rebuilding 107

The enrichment and ennoblement of

the human character brought about by

the experience of even the brief joy of love,

as God intended it to be, compensate for

certain future death, separation and

present trials. It is a question of balance.

Those who know the love of God in Christ

and those who have experienced a feint

taste of that same quality of love in God-

given marriage will confess that it is worth

the certain severe sufferingwhich it brings

with it. The principle is that even a little,

short-lived love is better than none at all.

Thereasonis that evenmortallove changes

the eternal human psyche.

Evidently the Creator, being love per-

sonified, thinks this way too, for he did

indeed create us and the rest of the fallen

creation, in spite of the foreseen mess and

separation.

All the same, many people — includ-

ing ourselves sometimes — feel tempted

to say "God, forgive God"2 when contem-

plating the dire mess in which the world

finds itself. Yet if it is true as the Scrip-

tures assure us^3 that temporal sufiferings

108 Is Ulis a God of Love?

can and do bring eternal recompense, if it

is true that suffering is not necessarily

punitive but canbe remedial as well, then,

relying on the Scriptures, we are able to

accept the anguish, just as God did when

he crucified God to remedy the fall of man.

The next question is: what would we

expect God to do to pull us out of the mire?

The Problem Of God's Answer

Now that the fall has taken place and

sin and anguish are in the world, what

would we expect God's answer to be? The

answer we give will depend entirely on our

conception of God's character.

If God is a God of love, then he is our

loved one. What would we expect a true

loved one to do who had been misunder-

stood and rejected? Perhaps the scrip-

tural answer is the best one here: Love

"suffereth long, and is kind...is not easily

provoked, thinketh no evil... beareth all

things... endureth all things... (love) never

faileth."4

Surely that is the reaction we would

expect of someone who truly loves us.

TTie Problem of Rebuilding 109

Love endures all these things in the hope

of ultimate success in the wooing process

of love. God saw man's wrong choice and

all of its consequences which would lead

to chaos and anguish, long before the

wrong choice was made. When it did

come, however, we would not expect a real

God of love to impatiently and disgustedly

dismiss and destroy the object of his love.

Many who have difficulties with these

points apparently expect God to act like a

hard-hearted unforgiving tyrant rather

than a forgiving father. Such an expecta-

tion probably arises from the feet that

such action is typical of short-fused people

like ourselves. But then, we are no real

examples of love in being short-fused.

In actual fact we would expect a God

of love to try to salvage what he could out

of the carnage. It takes the patience of

genuine love to set about this process. He

had warned in faithfulness and sternness

of the consequences of the wrong choice

—men would surely die of it—but neither

angel nor man heeded. One thing God

would not be expected to do, once the

110 Is This a God of Love?

wrong choice had been taken, would be to

block the way back to himself by attempt-

ing to threaten, cajole or force us back.

Force cannot restore anything in the way

of love. That would be to cut off all possi-

bility of a way back.

How To Restore Love

Thus, in order to restore love, there

remains only one way open—the exercise

of further patient love. Accordingly, God

exercises long-suffering and patience in

trying to win us back freely to love and

reason.

Therefore, we should expect the con-

sequences of the fall not to be "fire and

thunder," but rather the "still small voice"

in the attempt to realize the word said

about God by the apostle: **who desires all

men...to come to the knowledge of the

truth."5

But this attitude of quietness and

perseverance can be mistaken for passiv-

ity or even inactivity. A large part of the

Scriptures is devoted to just this point in

fact. God is not inactive; he is not indiffer-

Ttie Problem of Rebuilding 111

ent. He is certainly not dead: The Lord is

not slack concerning his promise, as some

men count slackness; but he is

longsufifering toward us, not willing that

any should perish, but that all should

cometorepentance.6Thismeansjustwhat

it says: not all men will repent and come

to a knowledge of the truth. But it con-

firms that God is a God of love and

patience who is ready and willing to receive

all who do turn to him.

The fact, then, that He has waited so

long before judging sinful man is, in real-

ity, another indication of God's true

character — loving-kindness, patience,

long-suffering, not being easily provoked.

Only by looking at the situation in this

way can I see any explanation of why God

has not long since exercised general

judgement on all of us and set up a

"puppet state" on earth and in heaven to

slavishly and immediately carry out his

every demand, just as any dictator would

do if he could, particularly if his will had

been thwarted as God's will certainly has

been.

112 IsThisaGodofLove?

Thwarting God's Win

Some will feel shocked. Can, then,

God's will be thwarted? The fatalistic

Muslims think not Is it possible that his

will may not be done on earth as it is in

heaven? Anyone unsure about this point

should ask himself whether God planned

any act of sadism that has taken place.

Was it his will to kill six or seven million

Jews in gas chambers simply because

they were Jews? Was this not rather,

thwarting God's perfect will? And does not

any other sin also thwart it?

Sinning is one way of thwarting his

will. Another way would be to set up a

dictatorship to "restore order to the cha-

otic creation." If this route to rebuilding

creation were adopted, it would just as

effectively thwart God's real purpose of

setting up a kingdom of love. Under the

present circumstances of freedom to do

good or bad, there are still a few people

who see the situation as it really is and

who turn to God to be refreshed by his

love, even in the midst of the general

anguish of creation. Even a little of such

The Problem of Rebuilding 113

love and refreshment is better than none

at all. If the Lord had judged immediately

after the fall or after any sin, how many

who have since drunk of the water of the

well of life and love would have been lost

to him and his kingdom of love for ever?

His patience has been rewarded with

responding love which would have been

impossible if immediate judgment had

supervened.

King George VI Of England

Astory is told about King George VI of

Great Britain and how he won Elizabeth.

As ayoung man the future king fell in love

with the charming young Scottish lady.

After a long time of reflection he plucked

up his courage and approached her on the

subject although he was rather shy, es-

pecially with the opposite sex. He had

never been much of a lady's man and was

neither very robust nor strongly mascu-

line in the film-star sense of the word.

Moreover, he had a slight speech defect,

which added to his difficulties. His pro-

posal was rejected.

114 Is This a God of Love?

The young prince, greatly upset over

this rebuff, asked his mother, Queen Mary,

for her advice. The Queen listened sympa-

thetically to her son's tale of woe. Then she

told him she just wanted to ask one

question before advising him. Did he re-

ally love Elizabeth only? Would he be able

to find a substitute if Elizabeth proved

reluctant? After a moment's consider-

ation, he replied that he would marry

Elizabeth or no one else. "Well then," said

his mother, there is only one way open to

you. Go and ask her again."

So the young prince put his pride in

his pocket, gathered up his remaining

courage, and arranged another interview

with Elizabeth. He probably stuttered as

he repeated his proposal, remembering

what had happened to him the first time

at her hands. She refused him again.

Not knowing what to do then, he

returned to his mother, Queen Mary, for

advice. Again she listened quietly—some

say, severely — to the whole story. She

showed him every sympathy, and, after

hearing all he had to say, indicated that

The Problem of Rebuilding 115

she had one question to ask before she

could advise him. The question was: "Do

you really want her after this rebuff?

There are plenty of other young ladies

around who would be delighted to have a

prince as a husband. I myself could show

you some.** But poor George was quite

clear about his feelings. It was Elizabeth

or no one at all. Then," said his mother,

"in that case there is only one way open to

you. Go and ask her again."

So, after a considerable period of

mental preparation, the young prince

approached the pretty young Scottish

lady the third time. In the meantime, she

had noticed how serious the prince was.

His love and determination to win her had

indeed been constant She saw that the

great effort he made in coming the third

time, putting his pride in his pocket dem-

onstrated his singleness of purpose. And

she began to recognize something new in

herself. His undoubted love toward her

was beginning to kindle an answering fire

in her own heart. His warmth of love, even

though he was awkward and not very

116 Is This a God of Love?

good at courting a young lady's affection,

was beginning to warm her affection to-

wards him. In short his love was begin-

ning to kindle her love, and she began to

transmit some of the love she received

from him. She began to feel she was able

to say that she loved and admired him in

his singleness of purpose and constancy.

Thus, the story goes, began one of the

really happy families in the annals of royal

households. This love lasted until the

king's death.

Love begets love. But it often has to be

very patient, longsuffering and kind until

the fire is kindled in the prospective

partner's heart The Scriptures say that

God woos in one way or another every

man and woman ever bom.7 Through the

circumstances of life, or through the

Scriptures, he quietly goes on as the years

pass, until we begin to return to him some

of the warmth of love which he has for us.

For we are told that God has his delight

among the sons of men.8 He loves us,9

indifferent or rejectors though we have

been of his overtures towards us. He is

The Problem of Rebuilding 117

working toward the day when we may

begin to return to him the same love, and

to delight in his friendship as he will

delight in ours.

Once kindled, this love must be regu-

larly tended in order to maintain the

warmth of the blaze which God intends

our love to be — warming and refreshing

to both partners, so that both can rejoice

in the happiness which love brings. God is

love and we were so constructed in his

image that we can only flourish when

bathed in such love—breathing it in and

giving it out.

But it would be one-sided to leave the

story here. All love stories do not end this

way. We must look at one other less

pleasant possibility.

The Final Refusal

There comes a time in every love affair

where a final answer toward the wooer

must be made. This final answer may be

either yes or no. One day the wooed one

maymake a rejection which, although she

perhaps did not know it was the final one.

118 Is This a God of Love?

It turns out to be permanent. In the one

case, she may, of course, die. That fin-

ishes the wooing of a mortal man—when

immortality lays hold of the prospective

bride.

Another possibility is that the wooer

may cease to woo. The *wooed** is not the

only one who has a free will to accept or

reject the wooer. God as the wooer has a

free will too — to stop or to continue

wooing according to his infinite wisdom.

He can decide how long to woo and be

rejected and also when to stop wooing

altogether. Even this final decision to stop

wooing, will, we are told, be made on a

basis of love. It will, accordingly, be put off

as long as possible.

There is a third and last possibility. If

the wooed marries another, then further

courtship by the first suitor would be

thorougjily out of order and outside the

confines of love. The Scriptures say quite

clearly that this state of affairs may be

reached in the spiritual sense. There comes

a time when a man umarries this world,**

and after that God no longer offers his

The Problem of Rebuilding 119

salvation, his "marriage relationship" to

him. His Spirit strives with him no longer.

A man's spirit and God's Spirit become

forever estranged, for man's spirit finally

"marries another," selling itself to this

world and its rebellion against the Most

High.

We humans can seldom clearly see

when such a final act takes place. We

cannot determine when God's Spirit gives

a man up forever. But that such does

occur is perfectly clear, even though it is

invisible to man's mortal eye. We can give

ourselves entirely over to material things

such as a career, money or social stand-

ing. It may be the love of things more

definitely sinful that cuts us off. In ex-

treme cases, we can "sell ourselves to the

devil'' quite consciously—as many Nazis

did when they knowingly cooperated with

Hitler in liquidating human beings in the

interests of their own promotion within

the party. Many do the same just as

effectively when they value promotion in

their jobs before promotion in the king-

dom of heaven. They do not seek "the

120 Is This a God of Love?

kingdom of heaven first"10 Some men re-

solve never to discuss spiritual matters

again because "they disturb." For them,

the courtship is over; they're married to

another.

The New Testament letter to the He-

brews speaks of that cessation. "Today

when you hear this voice, do not harden

your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day

of testing in the wilderness, where your

fathers put me to the test and saw my

works for forty years. Therefore, I was

provoked with that generation and said,

"They always go astray in their hearts;

they have notknown my ways." As I swore

in my wrath, "They shall never enter my

rest.""11

The context of this statement shows

that the Lord spoke and spoke again, and

wooed and wooed again, but the Hebrews

ofthat generation closed their hearts and

inward ears. In the end God gave them up,

and that generation, except for Joshua

and Caleb, never entered the promised

land but perished in the wilderness. This

serves as a parable for us, to whom God

Tlie Problem of Rebuilding 121

also speaks. We can be so occupied with

the joys and trials of this life that we, too,

do not hear. We, too, can miss the joy and

rest of his love by acting as did the He-

brews.

"For it is impossible to restore again to

repentance those who have once been

enlightened, who have tasted the heav-

enly gift, and have become partakers of

the Holy Spirit and have tasted the good-

ness of the Word of God and the powers of

the age to come, if they then commit

apostasy, since they crucify the Son of

God on their own account and hold him

up to contempt.**12

This warning is to those who have at

one time responded to God*s wooing, and

have therefore tasted his goodness, and

then cease to respond. Atime comes when

it is impossible to renew them, for the

striving of God*s Spirit with them ceases.

Another Scripture passage speaks in

exactly the same tenor: "For if we sin

deliberately after receiving the knowledge

of the truth, there no longer remains a

sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of

122 Is This a God of Love?

judgment, and a fieiy fire which will con-

sume the adversaries... How much worse

punishment do you think will be deserved

by the man who has spumed the Son of

God and profaned the blood of the covenant

by which he was sanctified, and outraged

the Spirit of grace?.. .It is a fearful thing to

fall into the hands of the living God."13

I take this warning for myself, believ-

ing that I can leam from all Scripture. The

point is, God can and does speak to men;

he does woo. If they respond, he allows

them to taste in this life the things of his

kingdom of love. But his wooing is dy-

namic, and it is dependent on our daily

response. Continual spurning may end in

our "marrying another forever." Then his

wooing stops. Rejecting Gkxfs grace in

Christ simply means declaring ourselves

as candidates for no grace, which is the

same thing as being ripe for judgment.

This raises the whole question of

judgment at the hands of a so-called

loving and gracious God. Can we accept

The Problem of Rebuilding 123

this? Is all suffering a judgment? Or must

suffering and judgment be kept apart in

our minds?

125

Chapter VI

Suffering: Is There Any

Reasonable Interpretation?

Resentment Against Purposeless

Suffering

Many people as they undergo suffer-

ing resent what is happening because

they can often see no constructive pur-

pose behind it "Senseless" suffering, such

as we see when innocent children are

destroyed or mutilated in war, sickness,

plague or famine, makes our anger and

impatience rise. The impatience increases

when we see pain which is not only

126 Is Ulis a God of Love?

"senseless** or "random** but apparently

designed and calculated, or even "refined,**

as is the pain at the root of malaria.

A good example of apparent sadism

arises in considering, as did C.S. Lewis,

the deafness of a musical genius such as

Beethoven.1

An absolute master of the art and

science of sound struck down with stone

deafness! Could a greater refinement of

apparent sadism be conceived? Hence the

impatience of many when they merely

begin to consider the problem of suffering.

Yet, on the other hand, anyone con-

sideringhimselftobe a Christian is warned

on every side to expect both joy and

suffering as normally as summer and

winter. Both are, according to the Scrip-

ture, integral parts of the Christian expe-

rience. Being a Christian does not provide

exemption from suffering with the rest of

mankind. Rather, there is the promise of

additional suffering for Christians. The

apostle Paul says explicitly that the

Christian must enter the Kingdom not

only in joy but through the gates of many

Suffering: Is There Any 127

Reasonable Interpretation?

trials, tribulations and sufferings, being

forsaken of man. and. apparently by God

too. before reaching the final gate of death.2

If God Is Good. Will He Hurt Us?

Lewis puts this very question in an-

other light when he writes: "If God's good-

ness is inconsistent with his hurting us.

then either God is not good or there is no

God; for, in the only life we know he hurts

us beyond our worst fears and beyond all

we can imagine."3 Plainly, this means that

if we believe in God at all. we must believe

that itis consistentwith his perfect nature,

kindness and love to hurt us and to leave

us wallowing in our own blood, as it were,

right up to the end.

Lewis adds a rider to this statement

which asks, in effect if we accept that in

this life God canhurt us beyond all thatwe

can imagine, and that this hurting is

consistentwith his goodness, have we any

valid reasons for believing that he should

not, if necessary, continue hurting us in

the same way after this mortal life is over?4

Obviously there is no moral reason why he

128 Is This a God of Love?

should not, if spirits can endure suffering

as mortal men do. Numerous passages of

Scripture need tobe examined carefiillyin

this connection. Neither Lewis nor we are

suggesting that the torments of hell are

universal after death! The real question is

whether suffering serves any purpose in

this life and in that to come.

We can, however, go one step further

and still remain on safe ground. If God has

good reasons for hurting us now in this

mortal life, he might conceivably, have

equally good reason for continuing the

same process afterward, in death. Clarity

will only come by first asking ourselves,

"What do the Scriptures say?" And sec-

ond, from our answer to why he hurts us

now, what he intends us to achieve by it in

this life and beyond.

Was Christ Ever In Man's Position?

It is often helpful in dealing with such

questions to find out whether Christ the

man was ever in the same position as we

in regard to suffering. If he was, then the

Suffering: Is There Any 129

Reasonable Interpretation?

investigation ofwhat suffering achieved in

him will, perhaps, provide the answer as

to what it is supposed to achieve in us.

Accordingly, looking at one of the

most obvious cases of Christ's suffering—

the cross—may help to solve the problem.

God the Father remained "passive" while

millions of Jews, his own people, were

gassed in brutal cynicism, just as he

"stood passively by," as it were, while men

crucified his own beloved Son.

To make matters worse, the Scrip-

tures say that this brutal act was the

culmination of the prophecy that Christ

was the Lamb of God slain from the

foundation of the world. Thus, the cruel

cross was an eternally foreseen event —

an event which God presided at eternally

in an apparently passive manner in that

he did not stop it. Therefore, the hurting of

the beloved one must have been consis-

tent with God's eternal character. In fact,

God himself suffered, for he was in Christ

as he suffered (2 Cor. 5:19), so God was

actually notjust passive during this event.

He actively suffered.

130 Is This a God of Love?

The Cross And God's Love

This means that if the central doc-

trine of the Christian faith, the cross, is

true, then it is obviously consistent with

God's eternal love to hurt those he loves

best including himself, even to the point

of what we would call barbarism, for the

cross is barbaric.

Whichever way we look we find the

same picture in principle. Christ on the

eternal cruel cross and a so-called God of

love behind him and, indeed, in him.

Humanity and biology for millennia "un-

der the harrow" too, and yet allegedly,

according to the Scriptures, a God of love

behind us, who is until now entirely pas-

sive at the spectacle. Confronted with this

situation, what Lewis feared was not so

much a loss of belief in God at all with its

concomitant victory of pure materialism

in him. That solution would have been too

easy, foritwould have meant that a simple

overdose of sleepingpills at any time could

have gotten him out from "under the

harrow" forever. Far too simple! What

Suffering: Is There Any 131

Reasonable Interpretation?

worried Lewis was that man and biology

might be trapped, as it were, in a labora-

tory in which God might be the eternal

vfvdsectorand we the rats!5 Lewis says that

the despair in which the Son of God died

when he cried out "My God, why hast

thou forsaken me?1* migjit have been the

result of Christ finding out that the cross

was, in reality, a carefully baited labora-

tory trap which sprang at death and from

which there was no escape after God had

lured him into it.

Looked at dispassionately, surely even

a fallen person like myself, possessing

scarcely a trace of the love I attribute to a

God oflove, could not have stood passively

by while they crucified him — or gassed

millions of Jews. But then, if we take that

view, God must be morally inferior—even

to me—which is completely nihilistic. We

shall have to scrap that thought too, for it

leads straight to the destruction of all

rational thought on the subject.

Of course God is more compassion-

ate than I. But then why was he so

132 Is Tliis a God of Love?

relentlessly passive at the cross? Why

doesn't he relent at the millennia of hu-

man and biological agony?

Hurting In Order To Heal

Might the key to the sore problem be

found in the following considerations: Can

we allow that to do good there are occa-

sions when we must do that which looks

as though it were bad? Put another way,

can we hurt to heal? Obviously we can

allow that, for every good surgeon and

dentist does so regularly and routinely. If,

every time I flinched, gripped the dentist's

chair, or drew back my head in pain at the

relentless drill, the dentist were to stop

and end the torture by filling up the still

dirty cavity with amalgam, he would be

less than a good dentist He would not be

being good, kind or loving to his patient if

he were anything but absolutely unre-

lenting in his thoroughness in inflicting

this therapeutic suffering. We would all be

in trouble again in no time if he did relent.

And then all the pain he had inflicted in

earlier drillings would have been in vain.

Suffering: Is There Any 133

Reasonable Interpretation?

He has to be apparently passive to the

pain he is causing. Does he seem devoid of

feeling? In reality, of course, his passive-

ness to suffering, his apparent lack of

feeling and his relentlessness are merely

motivated by common sense and consid-

eration for his patient, even though the

intolerable pain might persuade me oth-

erwise.

For anyone who has undergone a

molar root treatment two further points

will emerge or throw light on this problem.

The bacterial infection not only causes

excruciating pain, but the toxins released

into the blood will poison the patient to

such an extent that his very conscious-

ness maybecome clouded. He may scarcely

knowwhat he is doing because of the pain

and poison. Then the dentist begins work

with his awful drill. The pain becomes

more excruciating until the center of in-

fection is reached. Then the poison pres-

sure is released, and immediate relief is

felt though it is not yet complete. As soon

134 Is This a God of Love?

as no more poison is being released into

the blood, the head begins to clear and the

pain to subside.

First, then, in order to remove the

hurt of decay, sometimes more pain has to

be inflicted — worse than that of the

original sickness. But the worst pain acts

therapeuticaUy on the first pain and purges

it away. Second, only when the basic

trouble begins to be cured does clarity of

thought return.

The Scriptural Position

Scripture teaches, in essence, pre-

cisely this view on the meaning of suffer-

ing. The fall introduced the "decay" of

humanity and nature resulting in the

hurt which afflicts us. To cure this fester-

ing mess, the Bible says a good but re-

lentless surgeon is needed to drill and drill

until reality is too horrible to bear, until

flesh and blood can no longer take it —

until we believe we are forsaken by God

and man. The Bible describes in detail

both the setting in of the decay and its

radical, but painful cure. Our species has

Suffering: Is There Any 135

Reasonable Interpretation?

decayed from its original state and be-

come, as it were, a lower or decayed

species, as I have described elsewhere.7

The cure requires radical and drastic

treatmentinvorving, first of all, thereaching

of the "focal point of the infection,** and

then the "removal of the deformities caused

by decay. " Christ's death and resurrection

"reached the focal point" of the trouble, as

it were. But the "deformities of the decay"

have also to be corrected, and that takes

time and can be expected to be painful.

One of these "deformities" is con-

nected with the "clouding of the intellec-

tual and rational processes" which ac-

companies the fall. The apostle described

them in Romans 1 as a "darkening of the

mind" so that the normal logical thought

processes for which we were designed

become garbled. One of the by-products of

suffering is seen here. For although suf-

fering and toxins may "knock us silly," the

removal of the latter can bring clarity of

thought. It is a fact that sin darkens the

mind. The corollary that redemption and

holiness enlighten the mind is also true.

136 Is This a God of Love?

For salvation not only redeems us from a

lost eternity; it also redeems us from a

lost, clouded, befuddled consciousness at

present. By taking away our sin, we be-

come saved for eternity. But we must not

forget that this same saving process brings

light and radiance to the heart and the

intellect right now, the process being one

of growth — growth in this life.

Accurate Surgery Or Wholesale

Butchery?

Can the skilled, accurately aimed

work of the dentist on a tooth with its

concomitant pain and healing, be com-

pared with the wild, indisdplined, purely

destructive agony which afflicts much of

mankind today? Here again, for any sat-

isfactory answer, we must turn back to

the archetype of all barbarous suffering,

namely, the cruel cross.

Is it possible to believe that when

wicked men, inspired by hatred and jeal-

ousy, decided to take Jesus, hold a mock

trial, scourge him, display him all night for

the raucous amusement of the troops and

Suffering: Is There Any 137

Reasonable Interpretation?

then finally drive iron stakes through his

hands and feet raising him on a cross to

bleed and suffocate to death — can we

reasonably hold that such a performance

was the work of a skilled surgeon in his

efforts to cure the world of its disease?

The Exact Therapy Of The Cross

The Christian position is frankly that

this was the case: that God, with the

butchery of the cross, did cure the world

of its disease; that the cross was the work

of a skilled surgeon, even though it looked

from the human point of view like the

exclusively destructive and adventitious

work of the ribald Roman soldiers and

hateful Pharisees. It looks so very much

like this that the cross was considered by

the Greeks to be so unworthy of Divinity

that it was a sheer "scandal.'* But the feet

is, outward appearances may deceive.

The reasonfor this deception is simple.

Outwardly wicked men put him to death

and that was all that man ever saw of the

process. But behind the scenes the great

surgeon did an unseen work through

138 Is This a God of Love?

Christ's suffering. Christ took into his

own body the very **virus" which was at the

root of man's sickness — the turning of

man's back upon the only good one and

his perfect will. The Bible says that this

turning is "sin." It is as though Christ in

his death took the organism of decay (sin)

away from me, as well as the toxic prod-

ucts of decay (sins) and allowed the or-

ganism to be cultured in his body until it

killed him. A parasite may kill the host

organism, as when the influenza virus

kills the man it lives on as a parasite. But

in killing the host it also kills itself at the

same time. So Christ took on the causative

organism (sin) together with its toxins

(sins) so that mankind could be freed from

both by embracing his act

This was the secret surgery or therapy

which went on unseen to the human eye

when they crucified him. Thus, the sense-

lessness of the cross is only superficial —

superficial to the uninitiated. Its sense-

lessness becomes sense to those who

Suffering: Is There Any 139

Reasonable Interpretation?

probe to the bottom of the mystery and

find that he did, in fact, bear their sin and

sins in his own body on the tree.

Christ at Calvary reversed the pro-

cess of rejecting God's known will by

turning to, embracing and doing God's

known will, even though it meant his own

suffering and death. Man's act in turning

away from God was reversed by Christ

when he embraced God for us anew with

his will. However, he embraced not only

the basic cause of the ill — the turning

away — but he took on himself the con-

sequences, the "metabolic products," as it

were, of that fatal wrong choice. He took

my sickness and my sicknesses on him-

self. No one knows just how he accom-

plished this, just what mechanism he

used. All we know is that we could not do

it, for none of us could die in a valid way

before God for the sin of another. The

Father gave his permission and command

to Christ to lay down his life as a ransom

for many. And Christ obediently did just

that The man Christ reversed Man's

disobedience.

140 IsTTiisaGodofLove?

The Scriptures teach one other point

on the meaning of suffering. Hebrews 5:8

teaches that even the Son of God learned

obedience by the things he suffered. If the

suffering of the dreadful Cross produced

positive results in the Son of God in this

way, perhaps we are justified in thinking

that even dreadful butchery of this son

may not be entirely negative in its effects

even in our own case.

A Less Ugly Way?

This is, I suppose, the legal way of

lookingatthetherapyChristaccomplished

for me at the cross. As such, it is of vast

importance, providing, as it does, the

basis of salvation from the guilt of sin for

eternity. Some will say it is horrible. It is.

To think that God could find no other

method than a bloody cross, cruel iron

nails through his hands and feet, before

he could redeem me from Adam's fatal

mistake, fills me with dismay. Surely a

more genteel, aesthetically acceptable

method could have been found for such a

momentous piece of therapy.

Suffering: Is There Any 141

Reasonable Interpretation?

This brings us to the second point we

must make on this subject. It concerns

the blood, the sweat and the desolation of

the cross of Calvary, in short, the ugliness

and horror of such a piece of restorative

therapy. The utter cruelty of it shocks

even wicked men. Let us look, then, at this

second great problem of the cross — its

ugliness.

It is written of Christ: "In the days of

his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and

supplications, with loud cries and tears,

to him who was able to save him from

death, and he was heard for his godly fear.

Although he was a son, he learned obedi-

ence through what he suffered; and being

made perfect he became the source of

eternal salvation to all who obey him."7

This is an almost incredible state-

ment for the writer of the letter to the

Hebrews to have made. The Son of God

had always been perfect from eternity

until he came into time at the incarnation.

During the incarnation he was without

sin and therefore still perfect. What the

142 Is This a God of Love?

writer is teaching here will answer our

question as to why God chose suchacruel

method of redemptive therapy.

Made Perfect

The process of "being made perfecr

referred to here means, in this context

being "made mature." If a child is perfect

in mind and body, there is nothing we can

complain about. But his perfection as a

child needs to grow into the mature per-

fection of an adult This process is one of

growth in body, mind and experience.

There is no quick way around it To be

genuine, it must be gone through experi-

mentally.

This is exactly what Christ went

through as a man. He was perfect from a

child onward. But the Bible says he grew

in wisdom and stature — that is, he

matured by his experience as a man. Even

though he was the second Person of the

Trinity, he was perfected by growing up as

a man, for he gathered actual experience

of manhood which he lacked experimen-

tally before the incarnation. He certainly

Suffering: Is liiere Any 143

Reasonable Interpretation?

knew all about manhood before he be-

came a man, because he was omniscient.

But now he experienced manhood in the

body — and matured or became experi-

enced, and therefore perfected, in it.

Now notice what some of this man-

hood experience involved for Christ —

somethinghe, as God, had not experienced

as a man before: "In the days of his flesh,

Jesus offered up prayers and supplica-

tions, with loud cries and tears, to him

who was able to save him from death." It

was the fight between the will to be obe-

dient and the terrible reality of a bloody

death on the tree. Here we have anxiety,

anguish and suffering—rightup tobloody

sweat — in anticipation of the abyss of

such a death. He matured as a man by the

experience of anguished prayer in faith to

him who could deliver him. We are assured

that he was heard because of his godly

fear. But he was only saved from death by

going down through death and thus being

led out of it after tasting it.

The result, then, of this seemingjy

unreasonable and cruel death of the cross

144 Is This a God of Love?

and the death which preceded it was that

although he was a Son, yet he learned

obedience through what he suffered. Of

course, he had always been obedient to

the Father's will — the two wills were

always congruent and the Father loved

the Son and the Son the Father. But here

was a new experience of the anguish of

facing death such as all creatures, butnot

God, face. The God of life was to die for all

his creatures and share all their ugly

experiences.

This anguish and suffering of the

cross and the preceding events demon-

strated that Christ was perfectly obedient

to the Father in all things. The experience

of the unnameable pain, anguish and

despair of the cross did something to the

incarnate Son of God which would have

been impossible before the incarnation.

The discipline, the setting of his face as a

flint to go to Jerusalem to face it all, the

refusal of even the analgesic (the myrrh)

before the nails were driven through him,

all that perfected even him, the Son of God

— as Man. Thus, the fact of the cross laid

Suffering: Is There Any 145

Reasonable Interpretation?

down the legal basis for our salvation, but

the bloody cross showed what suffering

and anguish can do if accepted as Jesus

accepted them. His death was expiatory

for sin. But the manner ofhis death served

at the same time as a teacher of obedience

to God the Man; it was a maturer, a

perfecter of the perfect one. If the Son of

God as man was matured in his experi-

ence and learned obedience by it then we

find yet another secret, hidden element in

the mode of "therapy" God introduced by

his Son to cure the creation of its fatal

malady.

It will be obvious then, that, purely

legally, Christ's bare death — by any

method—would have secured our salva-

tion for eternity. However, itwas, perhaps,

not immediately obvious why such a

shocking and barbarous route to death

needed to be taken—a route which made

the cross a scandal to the Greeks and a

stumbling block to the Jews. No wonder

so few of the Greeks or Jews could under-

146 Is This a God of Love?

stand it without the extra information

given on the subject of suffering by the

New Testament—and by experience too.

Suffering — Not Senseless

Thus, the anguish and suflfering of

the cross are not senseless. They are

refined, even though drastic, therapy,

hidden to the eyes of the mortal man in

general. But their function teaches us

why the whole Bible is full of references to

pain, suflfering and anguish. Every person

who embraces the death of Christ (and his

resurrection) as his basis for eternal sal-

vation is warned to expect, as a matter of

routine, sufferings of some sort. Christ

having suffered in the flesh, he is told, is

warning us to arm ourselves with the

same mind—that is, to be on the lookout

for the squalls of suflfering which certainly

await the consistent Christian.8 In giving

us salvation, Christ suffered. In accepting

that salvation, suflfering will certainly find

us out

Further, we are told that the disciple

is not above his Master even in these

Suffering: Is There Any 147

Reasonable Interpretation?

matters.9This means that, in this context,

if the perfection or maturation of the

Master could not be effected without the

anguish of suffering, neither can the

maturation or perfection of the disciple be

accomplished by any other means. The

Christian who thinks he can get through

without this sort of perfecting is living in a

fool's paradise. The disciple is not above

his Master even in learning matters.

The NewTestament is full of teaching

of this kind, teaching which is seldom

even touched upon today, for by its very

nature it is unpopular to the natural

human. Paul the apostle, when writing to

the Philippians, informed them that "It

has been granted to you that for the sake

of Christ you should not only believe in

him but also suffer for his sake."10 Surely

it would have been unnecessary for Paul

to have told the Philippians that it had

been granted them not only to believe but

also to suffer if just believing without

suffering was an ideal state. Clearly, no

one wants suffering. But in the light of the

above it must be a special privilege. Christ

148 Is This a God of Love?

did not relish it. He sweated blood in

anticipation of it. Yet he endured it as a

privilege in viewof the glory ofthe maturity

gained by it

Hois means, again, that even for us

mortals "senseless* suffering need not be

pointless. It may be more than the mere

adventitious agony produced in a mortal

body of flesh and blood. It can be the

gateway to special results in our charac-

ters. In any case, it is poor policy to avoid

suffering by disobedience, for Christ em-

braced trials and suffered because of obe-

dience. It is the Christian path to try to

follow the same policy. For by doing so

Christ has been matured and exalted by

the Father to his right hand. The Father

has committed the entire government of

the world into Christ's capable hands —

hands rendered mature and fit for the job

by being obedient even to letting them be

pierced at the cross.

Is it because the fruit of suffering is so

little known in the Western churches that

we have so few "giants" in the land today?

Suffering: Is There Any 149

Reasonable Interpretation?

In the East the total number of Chris-

tians has been reduced greatly by suffer-

ing. But the proportion of "giants," mature

Christians, has certainly increased there.

Promised Tribulation

The Bible—both the Old and the New

Testament—is crammed with references

to suffering, anguish, tribulation, grief,

trial and affliction.l1 For example, there is

this rather neglected text by the apostle

Paul: "But whatever gain I had, I counted

a loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed I count

everything as loss because of the surpass-

ing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my

Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss

of all things, and count them as refuse, in

order that I may gain Christ and be found

in him, not having a righteousness of my

own, based on law, but that which is

through faith in Christ...that I may know

him and the power of his resurrection,

and may share his sufferings, becoming

like him in his death, that if possible I may

attain the resurrection (out) from (among)

the dead."12

150 Is Tliis a God of Love?

The Reason Why

It is clear from the letter to the Ro-

mans that Paul knew and experienced

salvation on the basis of a gift of God and

not on the basis of any works he had done.

Nothing he could do could save him from

the penalty of sin. On the Damascus road

he had learned that his own works could

not help him but that Christ's work could

and did. Why, then, does Paul now insist

so much on the value of the work of

suffering he had done in losing everything

for Christ's sake? "Those losses would

never save him.

As we read the cited passage carefully

it becomes obvious that Paul is referring

to the value of suffering and losses in

learning the surpassing worth of knowing

Christ He is referring to a process which

can only be described as one of Christian

maturity or perfection. He suffered the

loss of every privilege which he had pos-

sessed as a well-respected Pharisee in

order to be obedient to Christ. No doubt,

this caused anguish. But his losses were

Suflfering: Is There Any 151

Reasonable Interpretation?

not only abstract. He was whipped, im-

prisoned, mishandled, shipwrecked and

generally maltreated as he went off scour-

ing the world for Christ's sake. He couples

these experiences with the greater experi-

ence which resulted directly from know-

ing the surpassing worth of Christ. Most

of us Western Christians know little of

this. Is it because we have not sougjit out

the only maturing process known in

Scripture leading to this knowledge —

and to Christ? Paul's obedience, like

Christ's obedience, in suffering while do-

ing the will and Word of God is the key to

such depth of experience.

But more about the maturing pro-

cess is to be discovered in Philippians 3.

Christ was exalted to power because he

was fitted for it by the things he obediently

suffered. Paul says in effect precisely the

same of himself and his own exaltation.

For he couples his loss and his suffering

with a capacity to take part in what he

calls the "out-resurrection" (exanastasis)

which he regarded not as a matter of

course for every Christian but as that

152 Is This a God of Love?

which depends on Christian maturity. We

all know—as do the Muslims — that all

of us, small and great wicked and good,

rich and poor, will be resurrected at the

great day of final judgement to receive the

things done in our bodies. But before the

day of general "anastasis" there will be an

"exanastasis" of rising of the dead, not in

general, but in a special resurrection. This

will be at the time of the return of our Lord

in glory to set up his kingdom on earth and

reign. Christislookingformenandwomen

among his redeemed who have allowed

themselves to be matured for this high

office—by means of the same process by

which he was made fit for it—by anguish

and suffering.

Apparently Paul's aim was to accept

the same type of loss and suffering that

his Master had gone through in order to

become prepared himself for high office

with Christ All this is based on the free gift

of salvation by the blood of Christ. But in

building upon this sure basis of free sal-

vation, a maturing or a perfection process

occurs by means of suffering in the will of

Suffering: Is liiere Any 153

Reasonable Interpretation?

God, foreseen both by Christ and by Paul.

Paul's attitude ofheart is confirmed by his

instruction to Timothy: "If we have died

with him we shall also live with him; if we

endure, we shall also reign with him; if we

deny him, he also will deny us."13 This

surely clinches the matter. The Christian

owes his redemption to the free gift of God.

But he owes his degree of exaltation to

close knowledge of the surpassing worth

of Christ and close association with him

and his purposes in his kingdom, and to

the maturation processes which fitted

even the Son for his supreme office in the

kingdom. The experiences of suffering,

endurance and anguish in obedience to

the will of God, no matter how outwardly

senseless and adventitious they may ap-

pear, are the therapeutic instruments

God used on his Son and uses on all his

redeemed who declare themselves willing

for the process.

Tlie same process produces not only

the surpassing knowledge of his will, but

it also makes us useful to others. "For

because he has himselfbeen tempted and

154 IsTTiisaGodofLove?

has suffered, he is able to help those who

are tempted."14 On this basis, who could

be better fitted to help mankind than the

Son of Man who has been through the

same kind of temptation — though far

more acute? This establishes a bond of

confidence between us and him. He un-

derstands because he has experienced

the fire of anguish. Therefore he can help

us. Our lot and his as mortals were once

congruous. It gives me confidence to-

wards him. If I suffer, I can help those who

are suffering, even as Christ has helped

me.

Perfection

This leads us to the third point The

first point was that Christ died and rose

again to justify and redeem us, giving us

the basis for fellowship with the holy God.

The second point was that his sufferings

and endurance were the means of quali-

fication and maturation for his exaltation

to the right hand of God the Father. In a

parallel manner, the suffering$ of Chris-

tians are calculated to mature them for

Suffering: Is liiere Any 155

Reasonable Interpretation?

high office in his kingdom. The third point

is also directly concerned with suffering

and its consequences. Peter develops the

subject in saying: "Since therefore Christ

suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with

the same thought (mind or will), for who-

ever has suffered in the flesh has ceased

from sin, so as to live the rest of the time

in the flesh no longer by human passions

but by the will of God."15

Peter was referring to "suffering in the

flesh," which he says, leads to ceasing

from sin in the flesh. But the same prin-

ciple also applies to matters not directly

concerned with the flesh, as he also con-

firms: "For one is approved if, mindful of

God, he endures pain while suffering un-

justly."16

This simply means that any discom-

fort we have to endure because of our

faithfulness to God's will eventually lead

toourbeing"approved.wInfact, Peter says

that as Christ suffered the same kind of

discomfort for our sakes, so he left us "an

156 Is Tliis a God of Love?

example, that you should follow in his

steps."17 This, then, is the line of action to

which we "have been called."

Therefore, according to Peter, suffer-

ing leads to ceasing from sin and approval

from God. Is it then any wonder that after

his death and resurrection, Christ asked

the disciples questions that bring the

whole problem of suffering into focus:

"Was it not necessary that Christ should

suffer these things and enter into his

glory?**18 "The Christ should suffer and on

the third day arise from the dead.**19 The

same topic was the subject of Paul*s three-

week long argument with the Jews in

Thessalonica: "And Paul went in, as was

his custom, and for three weeks he argued

with them from the Scriptures, explaining

and proving that it was necessary for the

Christtosufferand to rise from the dead.**20

Among other things, suffering made

Christ "approved.**

It is generally conceded that Christ's

death is basic to the Christian's salvation.

But the suffering type of death is not

usually emphasized. Perhaps it is too

Suffering: Is There Any 157

Reasonable Interpretation?

barbaric for our cultured society to bear.

Regardless of our reactions to the awful-

ness of death on the cross, God chose it in

order to bring to mankind a full salvation

— not only from the guilt of sin but also

from its power, not only to save us from

eternal damnation but also to demon-

strate to us how to become approved in

the same way that Christ became ap-

proved. In fact it was to teach us how to

cease from sin.

Rejoicing In Suffering

Paul sums it all up: "So we do not lose

heart. Though our outer nature is wasting

away, our inner nature is being renewed

every day. For this slight momentary af-

fliction is preparing for us an eternal

weight of glory beyond all comparison."21

Clearly, Christ's death and resurrection

are the cornerstones of any salvation that

will take us to heaven. But Paul is talking

about something built on the foundation

of salvation as a superstructure. It is an

eternal, incomparable weight of glory

founded upon salvation, God's free gift.

158 Is This a God of Love?

And it is our suffering, borne in the will of

God, which makes us approved forincom-

parable glory, just as afflictions and suf-

fering brought approval to Christ after he

had patiently and triumphantly borne

them. Temporary afflictions exchanged

for an incomparable weight of glory! Paul

considered it a bargain. So he acted upon

it immediately!

A Possible

Of course, one might say that if suf-

feringis so useful and well rewarded in the

will of God, then let us afflict and scourge

our fellowmen all we can and seek suffer-

ing ourselves. We are doing them a favor

by hurting them or ourselves. This seems

to echo the old argument Let us sin

willfully so that grace may abound. Let us

seek and provoke suffering! God forbid!

The dentist does not willfully or wantonly

bore holes anywhere and everywhere in

our teeth to stop the future possibility of

decay. God is the surgeon, so let him

operate just where it is necessary. He may

and will use wicked men as his scalpel. He

Suffering: Is There Any 159

Reasonable Interpretation?

has promised to punish them for their evil

intentions because they afflict others just

for the sake ofhurting and killing. Though

he uses the same evil for his purposes,

that doesn't give us the right to sin so that

grace may abound by hurting others or

ourselves unnecessarily.

To indiscriminately inflict pain is

wanton. Jesus never regarded pain and

suffering as good things in themselves, for

he abolished them by healing on many

occasions. He also told us to do the same.

The Scripture speaks of death itself as the

last enemy. Pain falls into the same cat-

egory. Pain and death entered into the

world by the fall, when man turned his

back upon God. The point is that God

reverses the evils of pain and death to

produce a glorious result — to glorify his

Son and to glorify man when they both

withstand and endure pain and death in

doing his will. This is how God triumphs

over evil — not by "stopping" it, but by

using it to his greater glory.

160 Is This a God of Love?

Gentling Process

A minister wrote to me on the subject

of the meekness of Jesus, pointing out

that the word meek is often misunder-

stood. In the context used in the Sermon

on the Mount the word translated by

"meek" really means "gentled" or "broken

in" as those terms are applied to horses

trained to work in a harness. The minister

recounted how, as a boy, he had worked

on a farm and helped with "gentling"

horses, breaking them in for farm work.

Later the horses were often used for pull-

ing out tree stumps prior to preparing

wasteland for arable purposes.

The untamed wild horses were use-

less for doing the skilled work necessary

for removing tree stumps. They had to be

thoroughly "tamed" before they could work

constructively with other horses in teams.

The taming or "gentling" process was a

prerequisite for useful work. Once they

had been submitted to the sometimes

harsh process of breaking in, which in-

volved punishment as well as rewards,

Suffering: Is There Any 161

Reasonable Interpretation?

they worked productively for the rest of

their lives and obviously enjoyed it thor-

oughly. As their experience grew, the reins

could be left on their necks and they

would go by themselves from tree stump

to tree stump, assume the correct posi-

tion, wait for the chains to be hitched to

the trunk, and then with all their strength

—nipping and nudging one another in the

process — pull out the stump. If a stump

did not come up at the first pull they would

move to a more favorable angle and try

again.

Affliction and suffering can work as a

"gentling" process, fitting us for God's

work in the present world and the next.

Tnis is the true meaning of the word

"meek" as Jesus used it. What if the

abysmal suffering of mankind and of na-

ture is now being used in God's good

hands to "gentle" us all — even as it

"gentled" his Son? The stakes are high

indeed. Suffering makes us kind to others

who suflfer. Butwhatif abloody war, a rule

of tyranny is realty working out an incom-

parable weight of glory for all those who

Is This a God of Love?

allow themselves to be "gentled" and dis-

ciplined thereby? If this is so, it would be

a fatal blow for the despair and nihilism

into which our generation is so obviously

falling. If eternal glory were to result (and

the Bible says it will), then we could, with

the Christians of old, rejoice in suffering

and jubilate with the apostle Paul: "We

rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that

suffering produces endurance, and en-

durance produces character, and charac-

ter produces hope, and hope does not

disappoint us, because God's love has

been poured into our hearts."22

Again, Why All The Barbarism And

Cruelty?

Some time ago I had the pleasure of

discussing this and related questions with

a U.S. Air Force chaplain. We came to two

main conclusions, which, as we shall see,

throw light on the above problem:

1. We all have some sort of freedom to

choose among the paths in life which are

made available to us. But we never have

any freedom of choice as to the conse-

Suffering: Is There Any 163

Reasonable Interpretation?

quences of any path we choose. For these

consequences are the built-in properties

of the way which we may freely have

chosen. For example, though I choose the

way of cheating in examinations, I cannot

choose the consequences of cheating. They

are built into the way known as cheating.

Similarly, I may freely choose to abuse

drugs — it's entirely my own choice. But,

having chosen this way, I cannot choose

the consequences of drug abuse such as

drug dependence, liver necrosis, delirium

tremens or hallucinations. They may be

built into the path of drug abuse. The

choice of the way is free, but not its

consequences.

Man chose and still chooses to turn

his back on the only good — God. Before

doing this he was automatically part of

paradise, for paradise was everywhere

that God was. Having chosen good (God),

paradise could not be chosen — it was

part of the way with God, paradise was

"built in" it. Of course, paradise included

eternal and abundant life. However, later,

in turning his back on God, man refused

164 Is This a God of Love?

the way of paradise and chose the alterna-

tive way built into the choice of following

Satan.Thebuilt-in consequences included

such matters as pain, sorrow and death.

Thus man found that after making his

perfectly free choice for Satan, he auto-

matically began to reap the consequences

of this choice.

What can be done about the situa-

tion? To get man out from "under the

harrow," to "pull the tines* out of his flesh

now that they are there is painful too.

Piercing flesh hurts in the first place, but

so does pulling out the tines.

2. Suffering is not necessarily a judg-

ment. Christ has assured us on that

point.23 In a way, suffering was a judg-

ment — the judgment following a wrong

choice. But curing the consequences of

the fall is painful too. When we suffer, the

pain may be either punitive or curative. It

may also be a mixture of the two. Until we

get behind the scenes of the material life,

we shall probably never be able to sort out

the two. Nevertheless, both kinds of agony

can serve to heal us.

Suffering: Is There Any 165

Reasonable Interpretation?

Importance Of The Stakes

There is just one more point to be

made in dealing with our problem. Prob-

ably few of us know what we really believe

until we are asked to suffer some inconve-

nience or even pain for it. How much are

we willing to suffer for what we really

believe? Tlie length we go along that road

shows the depth of our belief. The Bible

holds up Christ as an example — he

suffered unto death because he totally

believed in redeeming us. Some, like

Falstaff, run away to fight another day,

believing that discretion is the better part

of valor. Surely such persons have shal-

low faith in what they fight for!

Christ loved his own, right up to the

cruel death on the cross. This fact estab-

lishes forever his absolute faith in his

calling to redeem the world. Second, it

establishes the degree of his love toward

those whom he purposes to redeem.

Therefore, it is obvious that suffering

may act as a sieve or a filter to sift out the

lighter elements of love and faith and

separate them from the deeper ones. Suf-

166 Is Tills a God of Love?

fering may show us what we realty do

believe as compared to what are only

words and hot air. The little suffering that

I personally have experienced has cer-

tainty shown me the shallowness of my

faith in many directions. It produces a

clarity of thought in these matters which

is vital, for it leads me to repentance at the

sight of my own shallowness in eternal

matters. Therefore, suffering can act as

the filter I personally need to sort out the

wheat from the chaff in my own dealings

with God, the good one. Fire must sepa-

rate the dross from the gold in normal

refining processes. But after enduring the

fire, the gold is pure gold, though it maybe

less in volume than before the fiery refin-

ing process. Similarly, strong winds blow

away the chaff and leave the corn.

The Joy Of Relief

In C.S. Lewis* famous Screwtape Let-

ters the "Law of Undulation" is used to

describe the ups and downs to which all

humans are subject If we experience

Suffering: Is There Any 167

Reasonable Interpretation?

heights of joy, we shall also experience

depths of misery. This is a perfectly nor-

mal process to which all flesh is heir.

This idea maybe applied to our inter-

pretation of the suffering of mankind. The

person who has experienced the horrors

of great pain is the most thankful, posi-

tively grateful, for any periods in which he

experiences less or no pain. Such joy is

unknown to the man who has not experi-

enced pain.

The apostle John in the Revelation

speaks of this type of exultation when he

describes the arrival in heaven of those

"who came out of great tribulation."24 By

the very contrast that which they had

suffered made their joy the greater.

It may be legitimately asked why the

fall of man should have of necessity brought

the suffering and death of which the Bible

speaks. One can understand it having

brought suffering and death to Adam. But

why to the rest of the world? It does not

help much to maintain that Adam was the

head of visible creation which fell and that

it fell with him. The creation under Adam

168 Is This a God of Love?

was not rational as was Adam and there-

fore could not possibly bear the guilt that

he, being rational, had to bear.

Our answer to this question really

depends on our conception of the state of

nature before the fall of Adam. When the

Bible maintains that death and decay did

not exist before Adam's fall, it is really

introducing a concept entirety beyond the

power of mortal man today to conceive of.

For the idea of no death and decay cuts

clean across our total experience of the

laws of thermodynamics, particularly the

second law. It implies no ageing — no

entropy increase. The second law states

that although the total energy in the

cosmos remains constant the amount of

energy available to do useful work in the

cosmos is always getting smaller with the

passage of time. As I have pointed out

elsewhere, this again brings with it the

concept that chaos, disorder and decay

are always on the increase with the pas-

sage of time in our total cosmos.25

Illness, decay, suffering and death

can be regarded as accompanying symp-

Suffering: Is liiere Any 169

Reasonable Interpretation?

toms of entropy increase. In fact we mea-

sure the passage of time itself, in the last

analysis, by the rate of entropy increase—

how fast a dock, atomic or otherwise,

runs down. The corollary holds equally

well that without time there could be no

increase in entropy. The same meaning

conveyed by "timelessness" and "no en-

tropy increase" could be communicated

by saying that an "eternal*' or changeless

state had been reached.

The creation of Adam, as described in

Genesis, corresponds roughly to this ex-

ternal state of affairs. For we are intro-

duced to him in Genesis not as a growing

baby or as a maturing young man but as

an ageless person. Even Eve, produced

from Adam's flesh, was apparently ageless

too — she was, at least, no infant when

she appeared to Adam. In their innocent

state there is no record of their having

children, although Eve certainty had the

sexual organs of a woman and Adam had

those of a man. If they lived in a pre-fall

world where no decay, no death and no

second law of thennodynamics ruled, then

170 Is This a God of Love?

reproduction there was not necessary —

and, indeed, would probably have been an

anachronism.

A consequence of all this is that a

species living in a world in which the

second law did not exist must have been

vastly diflferent from what we would ex-

pect today where the second law reigns

supreme. For example, Adam before the

fall could walk and talk freely with the

Eternal, whose infinite dimensions he

experienced as a matter of course. Traces

of this ability are still seen in Moses and

some of the prophets who moved in the

eternal realm much more easily than we

do. Christ did, too.

If these considerations concerning

Adam's state before his fall are correct

then everything in that primeval state

must have been permanent or "eternal*—

without time, entropy increase or decay,

as they are in heaven or paradise. If the fall

took place in such conditions of eternity

and these eternal conditions had remained

after the fall, this would have meant that

the fall and its consequences are eternal

Suffering: Is There Any 171

Reasonable Interpretation?

too, and therefore irreversible. Adam would

have turned his back eternally upon God

and good, and his chances of returning

would have been ruined forever. This is

probably the state of the lost angels and

Satan, who, living in eternity where no

change in time can be, are lost forever.

Presumably, then, for this reason

God threw Adam and Eve, and the cre-

ation over which they had been set, out of

eternity — and its permanence in para-

dise — into time with its decay, sorrow

and death. God introduced the second

law, the law of impermanence and death,

as a measure to counteract the "freezing"

of Adam's fall. So he rendered Adam's

kingdom and its sin subject to time, the

passage of thus providing a way back into

the kingdom of love for which he had

created man.

Death and decay became fully devel-

oped as a means of return when Christ

used death to overcome the fall on the

cross. This made the second law, and its

accompanying culmination in death, the

grand highway back from the fall to the

172 Is This a God of Love?

kingdom, thus confirming what we have

saidaboveaboutitssignificance. Of course,

the introduction of death and decay to

biology introduced the necessity of re-

production, which did not exist in the

realm of the eternal —just as it does not

exist in the realms of angels, who are

neither married nor given in marriage.

Reproduction is a consequence, at least to

some extent of the introduction of suffer-

ing and death.

The undoing of the consequences of

the fall is best seen in Christ's deed on the

cross. On dealing with the cause of the fall,

in embracing God's will, Christ in the flesh

became Christ the immortal man (the last

Adam), rejoicing at the right hand of God.

The undoing of the causes of the fall undid

the consequences of the fall. Man, first of

all in Christ then took on the properties

and attributes of the original created spe-

cies known as man. He could again move

in time and eternity with equal facility, as

demonstrated by his meeting with the

disciples on the Emmaus road after his

resurrection. The same process (the re-

Suffering: Is There Any 173

Reasonable Interpretation?

opening of paradise) is open to all who

wish for it and seek it in the same way that

Christ did.

The conclusion we draw, then, as far

as our original question is concerned, is

that time and its concomitant decay, suf-

fering and death were introduced to the

whole of Adam's cosmos so as to permit a

way back for Adam's cosmos. If Adam and

his kingdom had remained in eternity,

then Adam's sin would have remained

forever "frozen." Seen in this light, the

tortures of our present time seem to be

necessary mercies consistent with a God

intent on restoring to man and his cosmos

a kingdom of love, and intent on restoring

to Adam his own image.

The undoing of creation was accom-

panied by the introduction of the second

law and its concomitant death and decay.

This is realty the opposite of a creation and

its concomitant decrease in entropy. The

abolition of the second law, suffering and

death, is, in reality the same thing as re-

creation and is spoken of as such in the

Revelation of John.26

175

Chapter VH

Predestination & Free Will

No discussion of the implications of

free will would ever be complete without

mentioning the problem of predestination

or "free will." The whole subject is a diffi-

cult one and ought to be treated by a

theologian rather than a mere scientist.

However, thisbookhas argued very heavily

from the stand point of free will, so it could

be deemed biased, perhaps even tenden-

tious, if we fail to mention that the so-

called opposite doctrine of predestination

or "no free will" does play an important

role too. This was emphasized by Calvin,

of course.

176 Is This a God of Love?

Can free will exist side by side with

predestination or "no free will** without the

two concepts mutually canceling one an-

other out or producing nonsense? The

Scriptures teach that they can and do

exist side by side without annihilating one

another. A comparison of a few texts, as

set out in Table 1, will serve to confirm the

above concept:

Passages Teaching Free Will

Thus it appears that the Scriptures

do teach that man is able to say no to God,

with all the temporal and eternal conse-

quences of such an action. But the same

comparison will also show that man is

exhorted to say yes to God and can do so.

Notice something new here. When a man

has said yes to God he finds that he was

predestined to do so. Man was not nec-

essarily predestined to say no, although

Judas was known prophetically as the

son of perdition (foreknowledge). The point

is, man is exhorted and wooed to say yes.

But when he accepts the invitation he

finds that he was predestined to do so and

Predestination and Free Will

177

TABLE 1

Biblical Predestination

and

Freewill

Passages Teaching

FreeWUl

Passages Teaching

Predestination

Tor God so loved the

world that he gave his

only begotten son, that

whosoever believeth in

him should not perish,

but have eternal life"

(John 3:16)

Also the following:

Mat. 7:24, 10:32-33,

11:28, 12:50

Luke 6:47, 12:8

John 4:13, 11:26,

12:46

"You did not choose me

but I chose vou....I

chose you out of the

world"

(John 15:16,19)

Also the following:

John 13:18

Acts 13:17

1 Cor. 1:27

Eph. 1:4

2Thes. 2:13

178 IsTîiisaGodofLove?

many more texts convey a similar mean-

ing that God'setemal counsel hadforeseen

(not determined) the affirmative decision.

In the case of Judas there was a foreknown

no, and in the case of all Christians a

predestined yes which emerges when they

look back on their free-will decision!

Such a position of free will existing

happily side by sidewith plain predestina-

tion obviously cannotbe handled by simple

logic. From the ordinary human point of

view one concept excludes the other. A

paradox results. Having recognized this

paradoxical situation, we must ask: "Is

reality (including the reality of free will or

*no free will') intrinsically paradoxical in

itself, or is it our description of reality

which is at fault?**

To decide this point the following

must be considered: Reality is multidi-

mensional and probably eternal, whereas

we are three dimensional and strictly

temporal in our present state. Being tem-

poral, we use means of communication

which are temporal and limited in scope.

We are thus trying to describe a vast

Predestination and Free Will 179

apparently limitless scheme of reality in

terms of a means of communication

(language) which is highly restricted, lim-

ited, and generally inadequate for the

great task demanded of it. To formulate

reality, including that of free will and "no

free will," in our strictly limited means of

description is like trying to describe a

probability formula solely in terms of the

Arabic digits 1=10 with no algebra.

To illustrate further, light, as we know

it is a reality, a fact Our eyes appreciate

it without any difficulty at all. However,

when we are asked to describe the reality

of light by means of communication, we

stumble upon untold difficulties. For we

can, and do, describe light equally well

either as corpuscular or as a wave func-

tion. It is, however, perfectly logical to say

that if light is a wave function then it is

certainly not corpuscular in nature. If it is

corpuscular, then it is not a wave func-

tion. The one description excludes the

other in terms of normal logic. Neverthe-

less, modem physics teaches that we

180 Is This a God of Love?

must regard light as correctly described

only in terms of both wave function and

corpuscular concepts.

The area of real difficulty is now delin-

eated: Our dilemma with light does not lie

in the reality and fact of light itself but in

our attempted description of the reality of

light in our means of communication. The

complexities of light overload our descrip-

tive possibilities, producing apparent

paradoxes in the process.

We can try to overcome the apparent

contradiction in our description of light by

maintaining that light is either a wave

function or a particle simply because it

cannot in our logic, be both at the same

time. But if we cut out one description at

the expense of the other apparently para-

doxical one, then we fall into overt error.

For this one side of our description is

inadequate in describing the reality known

as ligjit. The two antipodes are necessary

to describe the whole of light The real

paradox lies then in our inadequate lan-

guage rather than in the reality, light

Predestination and Free Will 181

Returning to free will and "no free

will," if we were to maintain that the fact of

free will cuts out the possibility of predes-

tination oruno free wilT simply because, in

our view, the two concepts are mutually

exclusive, then we commit the same type

of error as we would if we maintained that

light, being a wave function, cannot be

corpuscular. If we go on to insist that free

will is not capable of existing in the pres-

ence of predestination, we are committing

the same error we have noted in parallel

circumstances in light theory. The fact is

that both free will and predestination

express multidimensional reality. But we

in our highly restricted view of reality

cannot appreciate the fact that the two are

congruent and not exclusive. To effect

such a "simplification" is to introduce a

false picture of reality.

Thus, we maintain that free will is a

reality and so is predestination. It is our

limited means of description which makes

them appear to be mutually exclusive.

Reality contains both, and both describe

reality. But we must note one important

182 Is This a God of Love?

consequence of this. If free will is a reality,

in spite of predestination, then all the

consequences of free will described in this

book operate in full vigor — in spite of

predestination which exists alongside it.

Thus, I know that I, of my own free

will, when confronted with Christ chose

not to say no to him. But having said yes

to him, I learned afterwards that my yes

was, in the eternal counsel of God (ulti-

mate reality) a foreknown and predestined

yes. W is foreknown but as far as I

know, not predestined in the Bible. To

eliminate either free will or predestination

is to rob reality of one of its aspects which

needs to be described by these terms. It is

important to realize the difficulties of de-

scription with regard to infinity and eter-

nity — phenomena with which our lan-

guage and thinking apparatus both deal

inadequately. But, obviously, for the

purposes of this book the one aspect of the

truth, that of free will, had to be empha-

sized to clarify the message. But it would

be tendentious to try to eliminate the

other side of the coin. If bona-fide free will

Predestination and Free Will 183

exists, as the Scriptures and experience

maintain it does, then it exists in its full

force and with all its consequences as

outlined.

It will be obvious from the foregoing

that, if God courts man's free-will deci-

sions, he is aiming at influencing him for

good. This activity is entirely legitimate

and does not interfere with our freedom of

action.

The Scriptures teach that there is

more in this question than merely influ-

encing our wills for good. There is, work-

ing against God's Holy Spirit also a con-

trary activity striving to influence man for

evil. Just as a personal good one (God)

courts our will for good, so a personal evil

(Satan) courts us for ill. The Bible teaches

that men do not fight only against flesh

and blood in this life but also against

spiritual wickedness in "high places.wThe

stark reality of this fact in the struggle for

man's will and man's good is underesti-

mated in this day when the masses of

people really believe neither in God nor

184 Is Ulis a God of Love?

the devil. But a whole book would be

necessary to attempt to deal adequately

with this struggle.

Footnotes

Chapter I

1. Rom. 1:19-20

Chapter n

1. Julian Huxley, ed., The Humanist

2. Acts 17:2, 18:4, 19, 24:25

3. Cited by Francis Schaefler,

p. 34. Cf. Ps. 30:9-11

Chapter m

1. A.E. Wilder-Smith. Man's Origin-

Man's Destiny. Bethany Fellowship,

Minneapolis, Minn. 55438, U.S.A. and.

The Creation of Life. T.W.F.T. Publish-

ers, Costa Mesa, Ca., 92628

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. The Glorious Koran. Dawood transi..

Penguin Classics, New York, 1968. See

alsoProv. 16:6

Chapter IV

1. F. Schaeffer, (see above), p. 100

2. The Glorious Koran, (see above) p.

115. 167

3. John 3:16

4. R A. Spitz, The Psychoanalytic Study

of the Child. International Universities,

New York, 1945, 1:53; 2:113

5. A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation of

Life (see above)

6. 1 Cor. 1:21

Chapter V

1. Heb. 12:2

2. C.S. Lewis. A Grief Observed.

Seabury, New York, 1961, p. 25

3. 2 Cor. 4:17

4. 1 Cor. 13:4-8

5. 1 Tim. 2:4

6. 2 Pet. 3:9

7. John 1:9; Rom. 1:19-21

8. Prov. 8:31

9. John 3:16

10. Mat. 6:33

11. Heb. 3:7-11

12. Heb. 6:4-6

13. Heb. 10:26-30

Chapter VI

1. C.S. Lewis (see above), p. 31

2. Acts 14:22

3. C.S. Lewis (see above), p. 25

4. Ibid., p. 25-26

5. Ibid.

6. Mat. 27:46; cf. Mark 15:34; Ps. 22:1

Footnotes

7. Heb. 5:7-9

8. 1 Pet. 4:1

9. Mat. 10:24

10. Phil. 1:29

11. Mark 8:31; 9:12; Mat. 17:12; Luke

9:22; 17:25; 22:15; 24:26,46; Acts 3:18;

9:16; 17:3; 1 Cor. 12:26; 2 Cor. 1:6;

4:17; Acts 26:23; 2 Tim. 2:12; Mat. 24:9;

Col. 1:24; 1 Pet. 5:9; 2 Tim. 1:8; Heb.

11:25,35; Phil. 3:10; Acts 14:22; Rom.

5:3; 8:35; Gal. 3:4; Phil. 1:29; 2Thes.

1:5; Heb. 2:18; 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:19.21; 3:17-

18; 4:1,19.

12. Phil. 3:7-11

13. 2 Tim. 2:11-12

14. Heb. 2:18

15. 1 Pet. 4:1-2

16. 1 Pet. 2:19

17. 1 Pet. 2:21

18. Luke 24:26

19. Luke 24:26

20. Acts 17:2-3

21. 2 Cor. 4: 16-17

22. Rom. 5:3-5

23. Luke 13:4

24. Rev. 7:14

25. A.E. Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin,

Man's Destiny (see above)

1. Rev. 21

16. Bibliography

Arp, Hans, Fur Theo can Doesburg. De Stljl,

1932.

Camus, Albert, Caligula and Cross Purpose.

Trans. Stuart Gilbert, Penguin Books, Lon-

don, 1947.

Cruikshank, John, Albert Camus and the

Literature of Revolt. Oxford U. Galaxy Books,

New York, 1960.

The Glorious Koran. Dawood trans. Day-

break, Penguin Classics, New York, 1968.

Huxley, Julian, The Humanist Frame.

Macmillan, New York, 1962.

Lewis, C.S., A Grief Observed. Seabury, New

York, 1961.

Sartre, J-P., Les Essais. Baudelaire Series,

Paris.

The Condemned of Altona. Knopf,

N.Y., 1964.

Iron in the Soul. Penguin Books,

London, 1950.

Nausea. Hamish Hamilton, Lon-

don, 1962.

The Reprieve. Penguin Books,

London, 1945.

Schaeffer, Francis, The God Who Is There.

Hodder and Stoughton. London, 1968.

Spitz, R.A., The Psychoanalytic Study of the

Child. International U., New York, 1945.

Wilder-Smith, A.E., The Creation of Life..

T.W.F.T. Publishers, Costa Mesa, Ca., USA,

92628

Man's Origin. Man's Destiny.

Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis,

Minn., USA, 54413

The Drug Users. Harold Shaw

Publishers, Wheaton, m., USA,

60187

Other Titles Available

by

A. E. Wilder-Smith

TWFT Publishers

P.O. Box 8000

Costa Mesa, Ca. 92628

He Who Thinks Has To Believe

A delightful story of reasoning and

debate concluding that there is a

Creator God. $4.99

The Creation of Life

A classic, exposing scientific mater-

ialism and concluding that to have

an efficient design you must have an

efficient designer. $7.99

The Natural Sciences Enow Noth-

ing of Evolution

Uses the Natural Sciences them-

selves to show the error of evolu-

tionary theory. $6.99

AIDS: Fact without Fiction

A comprehensive, up-to-date pre-

sentation of the facts about this new

plague. Discusses its discovery, its

spreading about the world, its

medical effects and the efforts to

overcome the disease as well as the

politics involved. $7.99

The Scientific Alternative to Neo-

Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

Dr. Wilder-Smith's latest scientific

exposé of evolutionary theory.

Presents an alternative. Introduces

the *T factor for which evolutionists

have no answer. $6.99

Why Does God Allow It?

If there is a God — why does He

permit all the violence and suffering

in the world? Sensible answers to

questions that have plagued people

since the beginning of time. $2.99

The Day Nazi Germany Died

An autobiography by Beate Wilder-

Smith, Dr. Wilder-Smith's wife. An

eyewitness account of life in Nazi

Germany and the Russian and Allied

invasion. $4.99

The Author

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

A. E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England.

He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at

Reading University, England, in 1941. During World War 11, he

joined the Research department of ICI in England. After the war,

he became Countess of Lisburne Memorial Fellow at the

University of London. Subsequently, Dr. Wilder-Smith was

appointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical

company. Later he was elected to teach Chemotherapy and

Pharmacology at the Medical School of the University of Geneva

for which position he received his "habilitation" (the senior

examination required for professorial appointments to European

continental universities). At Geneva, he earned his second

doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior

university in Switzerland) in Zuerich.

In 1957 - 1958 Wilder-Smith was Visiting Assistant Professor at

the Medical Centre of the University of Illinois, 1959 - 1961

Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Bergen

Medical School in Morway. After a further two years at the

University in Geneva, he was appointed Full Professor of

Pharmacology at the University of Illinois Medical Centre. Here he

received - in three succeeding years - three "Golden Apple"

awards for the best course of lectures, together with four senior

lecturer awards for the best series of senior year lectures.

Wilder-Smith is also a well known speaker on many other topics.

He is Author and Co-Author of over seventy scientific publications

and more that thirty books which have been published in some

seventeen languages. His "Man's Origin, Man's Destiny" and "The

Creation Of Life" are Christian classics. Other books authored by

him include "AIDS: Fact Without Fiction", "Why Does God Allow

It?", "He Who Thinks Has To Believe", and "The Natural Sciences

Know Nothing of Evolution. "

The film series "Origins", which enjoys great popularity in many

countries was produced by Dr. Wilder-Smith. He has also

produced two new films in the "Origins" series - one on

Thermodynamics, and another on Information Theory.

Dr. Wilder-Smith's last Golden Apple award was inscribed, "He

made us not only better scientists, but also better men."

Table of Contents

Is This a God Of Love?