INTRODUCTION
If there is God who is all powerful, infinite in all perfection, kind and compassionate, loving, gracious and merciful, where is he when good people suffer? Where is he when innocent children in the hospital go through terrible condition, why pray if God is hidden or would not rescue those raped and maimed in war? Why is God selective to whom to help and appear to? This question is as old as man and is still relevant today. Great philosophers and theologians have attempted a solution to the problem of evil. For Aquinas, evil exists as per accidence and not per se, because it is a privation of good. Also, according to Richard Swinburn theory of evil, evil can be justified by showing that all known cases of evil eventually serve greater purposes, even though those purposes are not always immediately apparent. Also, that evil exist, does not negate or rule out the existence of God. If God should be responsible for the evil in the world, he says that certain conditions must be met. First, that it must be logically impossible for God to achieve a particular good without allowing the corresponding evil; second, God must indeed brig about the intended good; third, God must have moral right to allow the evil to occur and fourth the expected benefit of allowing the evil must outweigh the harm it causes. Thus, the benefit derived from suffering and adversity, including the opportunity for moral growth and formation of virtuous character, justifies God’s allowance of evil in the world.
It is the aim of this reflection to look into the concept of divine hiddenness and the Easter reality. It would begin by looking at misguided conception about God, the elusive God argument and way forward connecting the dots as it affects our Christian lives today.
THE TALKS ABOUT GOD
God is many things to many people and it is because of this that some bear misguided expectations about God. To Aristotle, as set out in his physics (VII) and Metaphysics (XII), God is the source of change and final cause of all motion, the pure act and the unmoved mover. Aristotle’s God is outside the universe and unaffected by it. Thus, from this comes the idea of the divine hiddenness argument. Consequently, Aristotle’s God was criticized of being cold and inhumane, being emotionally disconnected with the universe and thus, quite different from the Christian belief about God. However, it is from his doctrine that the logical conclusion on God’s perfection is based. The notion of God as an All-powerful being in reality who is worthy of worship, utmost devotion is the notion borne even by atheist, regardless of where this exalted notion of the monotheism may fall under. However, Paul Moser proposes that the candidate who merit being ‘God,’ worthy of trust, devotion and worship, must be on moral grounds. This excludes candidates who are powerful, big-bullies, fostering evil and ready to destroy in order to get their way. God is not going to be mistaken expectation. The right expectation according to him is in the same regard of moral standing, it involves to give morally impeccable life, worth living and without coercion. This is because coercion goes against God’s purpose of establishing humans who are agents and candidates of genuine filial relationship, he offers deliverance from what obstructs moral life. If God is able to do this deliverance, there is every need for us to volitionally cooperate the rescuing power he offers. Furthermore, he notes that perhaps the enquirers about God limit their scope to world-bound, far from the morally perfect character, to success and riches. Hence, they seek for evidence in their own terms, instead of the terms of that whom they seek.
THE ELUSIVE GOD
John Schellenberg argues that the hiddenness or inconclusive evidence for God is the evidence that God does not exist. Nietzsche argues that God keeps his intentions hidden and even when he reveals himself, he remains mysterious. Also, the problem from evil suggests hiddenness as there are certain things one wouldn’t expect from the benevolent God because those things are bad. More so, both Pascal and Kierkegaard seek to infer that God’s hiddenness confirms the skeptic’s rejection of human reason as a proper source of knowledge of God. We shall look at two senses in the doctrine of hiddenness; the positive and negative. In the positive sense, it rests on God to choose who to disclose himself to, where and when he chooses, he might as well disclose himself in nature. However, whichever way or medium he chooses, he still remains transcendent and mysterious. In the negative sense, God might also choose to conceal himself, even though he is loving and compassionate, in the face of evil, pride and corruption. From these we shall get the take of Pascal and Kierkegaard. To pascal, the signs of God are there but man due to corruption are unable to grasp it, and to Kierkegaard, there is no sign of God and that the even in the eyes of faith, God’s revelation makes no sense
Nonetheless, the elusiveness of God according to Paul Moser goes that God will not be made known to mere spectators and inquirers, but instead, it challenges the will of humans to cooperate fully and freely with God’s perfect will, which results in God seeking what is morally right and best for human and human being personified evidence for God, having been transformed. By implication, he tries to stress the significance of God’s elusiveness in ‘personifying or volitional evidence for God’. Furthermore, this contends with the problem of hiddenness, God being elusive, He reveals himself to whomever He wills. Moreover, this makes a shift from the question, ‘do I know that God exist,’ to ‘am I willing to be known by God and submit his will and be transformed?’ The first implication is the defense that skeptics overlooked the evidence that suits the purpose of God. Second is the fact that it makes philosophy shift from discussion mood to obedience mood, it also gives theism a fear hearing in disclosing human predicament of selfishness and death. Third is that it discloses the elusiveness of God different from hiddenness as put forward by atheists, finally, the epistemological shift to the benefit of overcoming selfishness and death, because of the transformation formed by submitting on God’s terms.
CONNECTING THE DOTS
Easter is a season of hope, of joy and of peace. Before now, it seemed God was weak to have died on the cross, that He was foolish or stupid to not have defended himself or taken revenge. His love in the eyes of men seemed senseless and naive but Easter proved all these wrong. God is not dead, nor weak, He is alive and death has no power over anymore over him nor over us by extension. It all makes sense now. Suffering is a mystery that would eventually make sense to us. God was with his son all along, letting him to take the lead, comng in at designated time that suits his will, to relieve him of pain in the hands of Simon of Cyrene, Veronica, Mother Mary, etc. There was no ojoro in this. Teachers set tests after lecturers, to satisfy and justify the requirements for their certificate of graduation. Everything is tested by its kind, gold by fire, man by suffering and what matters is not the suffering and crosses but our response to them whatever be our lot. God had to allow his son to go through some shit to correct the shit of Adam, through obedience learnt through suffering. Nothing escapes God’s knowledge and consent. By his permissive will, he painfully allows us to experience that dark side, that shit of whatever sought. His justice is that every debt be paid in full and his mercy is that he intervened in a time in history once and for all, so that we are not pushed to suffer beyond our capacities. So if he let you suffer, his grace is sufficient; both the operative grace and cooperative grace.
CONCLUSION
Why looking for Jesus, he is alive and have always affirmed this in his appearances after his resurrection. He appeared to Mary Magdalene, to Simon and the apostles and each time he did, he announces: peace be with you (John 20:21), I am with you always even unto the end of the world (Mat 28:20). Do not be afraid [I am aware of that situation] (Matt 28:10) I did not come to remove your sufferings, or provide bread that will last just for the moment. I have come to fill your suffering with my presence, to give you life to the fullest. So to the question is God still with us, may I dare to rephrase, are you still with God even in the face of tribulation or is your God the God only of good times, of rain and not of sun, of joy and not of pain? Are you with him only when he answered that prayer, when you got admission, passed exam, won that scholarship, got engaged, got married, etc. Perhaps you are among those who think that God should do what you want the way you want and nothing else, no space for his will to be done? Are you the type that believe you deserve everything good as reward for serving God, no mosquito bite, no malarial, no accident, no loss, no car failure, no phone spoilage, no headache? But that not God’s way, his way are not as mens. Whatever good you receive it is not because you deserve it a reward, your prayers and praises adds nothing to his greatness. He let rain fall on both good and bad, so also sunshine. Even the people of Isreal his elect did not always enjoy his providential presence and protection. He also created the gentiles and willed that after the mission of his son they too would be his elect and to the ends of the earth.
Perhaps also, you would be thinking that I sound like this because life have not hit me hard as it did you, and maybe that when it does, this sermon would make a lot of meaning differently to me. Yes, you may be right. It is very easy to counsel others of God’s presence and care when its the other story but think of it, I may be God’s presence that you don’t see and He may also let me see with time and through others the answers that I seek.
REFERENCES
https://sites.uni/boedeker/reference.pdf
John Bishop, a review of Paul Moser, “The Elusive God: Reorienting Religious Epistemology”, Cambridge University Press. Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec. 2009): pp. 504-509.
Moser K. P. ”Gethsemane Epistemology: Volitional and Evidential.” Phiolosophia Christi. Vol. 14, No. 2 ( January, 2012.) 264-266
Penelhum, T. 1983. God and Skepticism: A Study in Skepticism and Fideism. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company. 106-109
Sfekas, S. “Aristotle’s Concept of God.” New York Open Centre and Lapi’s Magazine Online. (September, 2008) https://researchgate.net/publication/281283580 Accessed 20th of April, 2024.
Shellenberg, J.L, 2012. The Hiddenness Argument: Philosophy’s New Challenge to Belief in God. United Kingdom: Oxford Unversity Press. 25
Swinburne, R. 1994. Arguments for the Existence of God, in Miltown Studies, Vol. 33, p. 63
No comments:
Post a Comment