Religion & Law

Mary Catherine Hikert has an illuminating article about the beliefs and writings of the great theologian Edward Schillebeeckx in the National Catholic Reporter. Schillebeeckx's writings were instrumental in the leadup to Vatican II and he reshaped the study of Christology in the Catholic Church in the last half of the 20th century. One of Schillebeeckx's many major themes was focused on the relationship between God and suffering. As Hilkert puts it: "Writing in the context of radical and senseless human suffering around the globe and growing ecological devastation, Schillebeeckx wanted to retell the story of Jesus as disclosing the mystery of a God 'bent toward humanity' in compassion, not a God who demanded suffering and death as recompense for sin. In one of his memorable ways of capturing this mystery, Schillebeeckx wrote: 'God?s cause is the human cause' (and the cause of all of God?s creation)." But, as Hilkert observes, "God is not a deus ex machina who intervenes in the events of human history. Schillebeeckx argued that the Christian interpretation of the biblical 'God of promise' was not a 'God of the gaps' but rather a loving Creator who empowers and trusts creation, but who does not violate creation?s autonomy or the freedom of human persons. In the face of the apparent absence of God, Schillebeeckx maintained that God?s creative and saving active presence (grace) sustains and empowers human efforts on behalf of humankind and the Earth and holds open the future even for those whose lives appear to have been destroyed by sinful humanity or the destructive forces of nature."

This, of course, leads to the problem of evil. Why does God permit suffering if God is opposed to it? Schllebeeckx maintained that God has not given Christians a theoretical response to the problem of evil, but a personal response in the life of Jesus. In Schillebeeckx's, view Christ's death on the cross was the product of human sin, not divine will. Hilkert's article is well worth reading. 

In this connection, I am reminded of Hans Kung's discussion of the problem of evil in his wonderful new book, What I Believe. Kung concludes that the problem of evil really has not been solved by any convincing argument and calls for faith. Recall that Kung also believes that the arguments for the existence for God are reasonable, but inconclusive. He believes that given a choice between living a life in a meaningless universe or in universe created by a loving God where we are called to be disciples, we should choose to believe in the latter. He suggests that even if he turns out to be wrong about the presence of a loving God, he will still have made the right choice about what he should have believed and how he should have led his life.