Tag: Christianity

The Theodicy of Disease

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth.  And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.” John 9:1-3

The disciples’ question may seem odd in the 21st century.  Modern science has uncovered the various mechanisms by which we become ill.  Whether it is an infectious agent, a genetic mutation, the consequence of behavior, or from injury, we have accepted a pathophysiological understanding of disease.  Illness as a moral failing, divine retribution, or consequence of sin has been rejected by secular thinkers.  If anyone were to suggest that disease has its origin in sin they would be dismissed as superstitious, medieval, bigoted or mad.

Science is by nature descriptive.  Its methods do not address morality.  It can answer “how” but not the great philosophical “why.”  Science cannot tell you the great purpose behind such things though it can, in detail, describe the various chain of events by which the thing has come about.  Without a moral answer, science leaves patients as victims of an impersonal chain of causes and effects which serve no clear purpose and cause great suffering even unto death. 

We long to know why.  How often have we asked, “why me?” or ‘why she?”  When we ask “why” in the setting of great tragedy we are not content with mere scientific description but desire knowledge and wisdom that brings purpose, context and comfort.  It is for this we must look beyond science, even human understanding, for answers. 

Are the scientific theories of disease incompatible with the Biblical understanding?  Must we choose one or the other?  Does the one exclude all moral agency and responsibility or the other preclude using human knowledge to effect moral good as part of God’s Providence?

Notice the disciples are not asking Jesus if this man’s illness is due to divine retribution but whose sin was the cause of his illness.  The disciples clearly believe that illness (as well as other disasters such as war, drought and famine) are the result of punishment for sins committed by the victims and/or their ancestors.  The disciples lived in world where it was understood that tragedy, such as illness, was linked to human wrongdoing.  This view was prominent in Western culture until the 18th century Enlightenment.

Clearly there are numerous examples of God bringing disease and pestilence upon individuals and peoples.  Witness the account of the ten plagues in Exodus including the smiting of the first born.  The Lord punished Israel with pestilence after inciting David to number the people (2-Sam 24).  God afflicted the child David conceived in adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:14–15).  When God revealed his Name to Israel he said “I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exodus 20:5-6). In the NT, an angel of the Lord struck down Herod the tetrarch (Acts 12:23).

At the same time the Book of Job rejects a quid pro quo analysis of every specific sin and tragedy.  Therefore, it is perilous to attribute a specific ailment or tragedy to a person’s specific sin.  Scripture clearly states when God is punishing a person or group for their sins.  Further, God sends warnings through His prophets that they may repent.  For us to state that a city, group or individual suffers under specific divine wrath for specific sins is to presume upon God’s will and assume knowledge that may be hidden within the divine council.   

We are taught in Scripture that illness and death are the result of the Fall.  Paul writes as part of his discussion on Law and Grace: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).  This is not to deny that there are consequences of specific behaviors.  Smoking leads to cancer, obesity to diabetes and sexual promiscuity to sexually transmitted diseases.  These relationships are part of how our world is after the Fall.  They are epidemiologic and pathophysiologic processes that find their “how” in science and their ontological “why” in sin.  Therefore, we can rightly state that a drunkard who develops liver failure is a sinner who suffers the consequences of their drinking.

Many diseases are not that straightforward.  For example, say a child suffers from a disease caused by a rare genetic mutation and science teaches us that this mutation happened because of genetic recombination which normally produces variations resulting in humans who are different and unique.  In this case, the recombination process generated genes that cause suffering and perhaps death.  Scripture teaches that all people are sinners, at the very least born into sin as children of Adam.  Yet science cannot explain how sin gives rise to such an illness.  Who sinned, the child or the parents that he was born with this disease? 

Jesus does not deny that the blind man or his parents sinned.  Nor does he deny that their sins deserve punishment.  Rather, Jesus reveals a third answer.  The reason this man was born blind is that God would reveal himself through a miraculous healing and not only display His power but give authentication to Jesus as the Messiah.  There are times and places where God performs works to authenticate his word and the messenger who brings that word.  God uses evil to effect good.  He permits evil for purposes that are most often too high for us to fathom.  Suffering here may lead to salvation there.

This man’s malady has become the subject by which God brings a message of salvation to those who were present. In this way, the man’s blindness was used by God to bring this message to countless others through the witnessed account recorded by the Apostle John.    

The word translated as “works,” ἔργα (erga) is from the root word εργον (ergon).  We derive our English word ergonomics from this Greek root.  When used of God, ergon refers to His creative and redemptive acts that flow from His covenantal faithfulness/loving-kindness (חֶסֶד, hesed) and His covenantal love, אַהֲבָה (‘ahabah).  God’s hesed was manifested by his mighty acts of salvation for Israel.  In the New Testament, such acts are understood to arise from God’s Love, ἁγαπή (ag-ah-pey).  

Here faithfulness and love are not separate from act.  The tragedy of illness is used by God to do a great good and to point to the greatest good, Himself.  God is not the author of confusion (1-Cor 14:33) nor does he tempt us with evil (James 1:13).  Rather God created what was good (Genesis 1:31) and evil befell the world when man sinned (Genesis 3:14-24; Romans 5:12).  Paul writes “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now” (Romans 8:22).  We, who believe, also groan as we await God’s new creation free of evil, corruption and suffering.  This is our true hope, our faith in Christ, for he is our hope (1-Tim 1:1) as we surely share in his resurrection. 

God created us as moral agents who experience the consequences, reward or punishment, of our actions.  God’s justice, righteousness and holiness cannot abide sin and demand its punishment.  God’s grace, mercy, love and kindness call for forgiveness of transgressions.  It is at the Cross where these are perfectly satisfied as Christ bore our sins and the punishment they deserved whilst his righteousness is imputed to those who trust in him.

God has a grand purpose for the salvation of man and the creation of a new heavens and earth for us to live in eternal fellowship.  This includes the resurrection of the perfect spiritual body into a new world that knows no sin and decay.  It is better than Eden where man was tempted and fell.  There will be no temptation in the new creation, and we will not ever fall.  Those who believe will live in security and harmonious bliss.  Yet until that time we wait patiently, wondering “how long,” and praying for the grace we need to persevere. 

We also are God’s chosen instruments to display that grace and to bring the Gospel to others.  This is often done in suffering.  For we are commanded to suffer with our Savior and take up our cross (Lk 9:13, 14:27; Mt 10:38, 16:24; Mk 8:34).  When we suffer, we do so for Christ’s name’s sake (Acts 9:16, Phil 1:29).  We are to do so gladly (1-Peter 1:6) knowing who is with us and sustains us (Ro 5:3) and that it is for just a season (1-Peter 5:10; 2-Cor 4:17).

The Cross is the answer to theodicy (lit. God-justice) wherein God is vindicated for his tolerance of evil.  It is in this context that we suffer illness, tragedy and death.  It is in this hope that we suffer with an eye to the future and with love for those God reaches through us.  We suffer for God and others as Christ suffered for us. Our suffering is always just, and our redemption is a free gift of grace.  Those who refuse the gift by rejecting Christ are without this hope.  These are hard truths. 

Scripture gives us instruction how to persevere in such trials.  It is found in the laments and is grounded in our knowledge that comes through faith. It is effected by the Holy Spirit through God’s Holy Word and with the love and support of the church.   We do not suffer alone.  Therefore, when we suffer, we cry out i to the Lord and seek is face.  When we see others suffering, we come to their aid and comfort them.  In all these things we glorify God and praise Him for what he has and will do.

A response to the deconstruction of the pro-life position

The following is a reply to an Op-Ed published on June 4, 2019 by Lagrange College Professor of Political Science John Tures.  His piece is available on-line here: https://www.valleytimes-news.com/2019/06/tures-how-pro-life-are-we-willing-to-be/

In his op-ed, “How pro-life are we willing to be?”, Professor Tures uses a deconstructionist strategy to argue that the “pro-life” position is inconsistent.  The employed method is nonempirical and therefore qualitative.  Such a technique is often used to interlock seemingly disparate groups under one governing principle or power that is often discriminatory.  I respectfully disagree with Tures’ argument as the issues and groups he mentioned nominally overlap in their particulars.  Important differences are passed over.

“Do Not Resuscitate” orders, withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, Euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion have in common the loss of human life in the medical setting.  Medical ethics underpinning the first two practices center upon the patient consent necessary for all medical treatments.  Consent can be withheld and withdrawn.  Ventilators and resuscitation efforts are active medical interventions. In emergencies, consent is implied unless otherwise documented.  Death as an outcome is not changed.

The argument against medical euthanasia does not center as much upon a terminally ill person’s right of self-determination but upon the ethics of physicians actively assisting or facilitating their demise.  There is no historical support for such a practice in the Greco-Roman or Judeo-Christian traditions that formed Western society and law.  Quite the opposite is true. 

The intent is to actively take a life using medical means contrary to the Oath of Hippocrates and the time-honored medical maxim “primum non nocere” (first do no harm).  Unlike comfort or hospice care, where the intent is palliation, euthanasia does not have any objective medical goal as death is always a medical harm.

Physicians are not to participate in lethal injection but may decide as a juror to invoke the death penalty.  The latter is not a medical activity.  Unlike euthanasia, the death penalty is attested in the Western tradition and law.  Divine and human justice demand recompence for murder.  Grace and mercy permit us to lessen the penalty and even forgive.  Without justice, human life and peace would be untenable.

Abortion is the purposeful taking of a human life that, apart from danger to the life of the mother, is for material and utilitarian purposes.  To justify such a heinous act, pro-choice advocates have dehumanized a fetus as somehow not alive or worthy of protection.  The Nazi designation was “Lebensunwertes Leben” (life unworthy of life).  Traditional medical ethics protect the life of the unborn unless the mother is in harm’s way.  Life, not death, is the expected outcome of the pregnancy. 

The pro-life position cannot deconstruct in this manner.  It is quite consistent across these categories.  All human life is sacred but evil and sin abound in this world causing death and suffering.  It is for us to seek the center of God’s will found in His Law and in the Gospel for our Lord uses evil to make good.