Response to a Respected Blogger
I received the following comment on my blog regarding the Holocaust piece I posted - from a man I have a great deal of respect for. Rather than answer his question in the typical comments section, I thought a fuller treatment as a separate entry might be warranted. First his comments, then I'll respond below those:
Scott,
Interesting piece. I remember my shallow study of the postmodern hermeneutic in seminary and can hear echoes of it in your writing here (no doubt speaking the language of your class as well). As it is, I'm not sure I completely understand all the concepts here so well - but they sound vaguely familiar.
What would you say as far as the "meaning" of the Holocaust from a distinctly Christian perspective? I understand this was not the intent of focus of your class, but I can't help but ponder how we bring our Christian faith to bear on such an event. It seems to me that such an approach cannot end with mourning itself.
Thoughts?
As always, thank you for taking note of my writing. Thank you, as well, for asking the tough question - a question I'm certainly not qualified to answer authoritatively - but will share my thoughts about.
The short answer (for me at least) to "How can I preserve my Christian faith in the face of atrocity," is that the atrocity itself represents the evil that man is capable of when not rightly related to his Creator. In this sense, the atrocity itself is not a comment on the attributes of the Creator, but a commentary on the nature of man. More on this thought later, first a little about the actual class I attended that stimulated the previous post.
The class I attended was an English course - concerned only with the acknowledged writers of Holocaust literature; Delbo, Levi, Wiesel, Frankl, etc. As such, we were focused on form and the process of conveying ideas practically beyond the comprehension of those that had not suffered the reality of the concentration camps. No one behind the lectern - the primary professor nor the invited historians, nor the camp survivors who addressed our class, posited any theory as to "why," other than the historically accurate assessment that the the Third Reich intended to create a "pure" society. There was no particular slant to the course - other than describing the Holocaust and the writings we were studying. In this sense, there was no attempt to assert any hermeneutical view of the Holocaust. Though I couldn't help myself from writing along those lines. I don't think I was greatly influenced by the class dynamics regarding what I wrote - in fact, being a 46-year old sophomore grants me some license with the professors - as long as I write genuinely and thoughtfully, I have yet to hear from any of them that my perspectives are wrong. That may be a flaw regarding a liberal university - more form than substance - but that was the context from which the paper sprang from.
As for accounting for, or assigning meaning to, the Holocaust from a Christian perspective - that's a huge order. Does the Holocaust represent evil? If we answer "yes," then the Christian perspective must account for the existence of evil in creation - a theodicy. As creation emanates from God, and we hold God to be immutably good - this poses a contradiction if we allow that evil exists in creation. To resolve the contradiction a reasonable theodicy would have to somehow separate God from the evil we witness in human life. In effect, God cannot be culpable for evil.
A few of the more formidable challenges associated with a theodicy is 1) defining evil (not everyone agrees on what constitutes evil), and 2) the nature of divine foreknowledge or omniscience.
From that point, and considering the above challenges and others - countless theological volumes interpret Christian Scripture to provide for the existence of evil among men and defend the divine attributes of God. The strongest theodicies center on God's gift of free will to man - the subsequent fall based on free will (pride), and the separation of the creature from the Creator's will - hence man's bondage to sin within his own "will," a complete denial of God's grace.
There are some foundational issues regarding what is termed the "free will" defense. Martin Luther, in his "Bondage of the Will," asserts "It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks 'free will' flat, and utterly shatters it; so that those who want to assert it must either deny my bombshell, or pretend not to notice it, or find some other way of dodging it"(pg 80, 1957, Fleming H. Revell).
Luther's treatise calls into question what we mean when we say "free will." Luther holds that man is incapable of producing good solely from man's choice, all good originates with God. If we cannot produce good of our own accord, then, any discussion of choice is destroyed as a nonexistent fantasy. If we don't have choice, what accounts for evil? Salvation for man operates within a faithful submission to God as revealed in scripture - not the exercise of free will of man toward God.
Having said all of that - back to the original question - "How do we bring our Christian faith to bear on such an event?"
It seems to me we are left with only two answers. One, the Holocaust is a graphic representation of man's ability to commit evil separate from God's grace, or two, the Holocaust holds some deeper divine principle or meaning.
I favor the first answer - as it allows me a continued faith in God's grace without contradiction, and yet accounts for my general suspicion of natural man (myself included). Hence, there is no "meaning" to the Holocaust in that formulation other than a demonstration of man's capacity for evil - life apart from God is meaningless.
The second answer - significantly more challenging and uncomfortable - would suggest that there is a "meaning" to the Holocaust apart from man's capacity to commit evil. The concepts of divine omniscience, omnipotence, predestination, determinism, etc all enter the discussion at that point. To discern "meaning" at that level, I believe, would require that I know the mind of God.
These two positions are not mutually exclusive. That the ability for man to commit evil, or be evil, certainly fits most treatments of the fall and divine principles.
With that in mind, I stand by my original comment that we wouldn't know the true meaning of anything if it smacked us in the face. "Meaning" in this sense to be taken as a comprehension of the truth of the matter, the purpose, the goal, the end state being sought. Related to the Holocaust, or any other demonstration of evil, we would be well cautioned, as creatures, to avoid assigning meaning as to the necessity of the event - it is beyond our ability as creatures. So, in fact, we may very well be left just to mourn our nature apart from God.
I asked one Holocaust survivor who addressed our class if he might comment on his system of faith - did his experience fundamentally change his beliefs? I'll never forget his answer:
"I believed in God, and I have faith in God today - but the Holocaust didn't have anything to do with him."
That's the best that I can do.
Thanks again,
Scott
Scott,
Interesting piece. I remember my shallow study of the postmodern hermeneutic in seminary and can hear echoes of it in your writing here (no doubt speaking the language of your class as well). As it is, I'm not sure I completely understand all the concepts here so well - but they sound vaguely familiar.
What would you say as far as the "meaning" of the Holocaust from a distinctly Christian perspective? I understand this was not the intent of focus of your class, but I can't help but ponder how we bring our Christian faith to bear on such an event. It seems to me that such an approach cannot end with mourning itself.
Thoughts?
As always, thank you for taking note of my writing. Thank you, as well, for asking the tough question - a question I'm certainly not qualified to answer authoritatively - but will share my thoughts about.
The short answer (for me at least) to "How can I preserve my Christian faith in the face of atrocity," is that the atrocity itself represents the evil that man is capable of when not rightly related to his Creator. In this sense, the atrocity itself is not a comment on the attributes of the Creator, but a commentary on the nature of man. More on this thought later, first a little about the actual class I attended that stimulated the previous post.
The class I attended was an English course - concerned only with the acknowledged writers of Holocaust literature; Delbo, Levi, Wiesel, Frankl, etc. As such, we were focused on form and the process of conveying ideas practically beyond the comprehension of those that had not suffered the reality of the concentration camps. No one behind the lectern - the primary professor nor the invited historians, nor the camp survivors who addressed our class, posited any theory as to "why," other than the historically accurate assessment that the the Third Reich intended to create a "pure" society. There was no particular slant to the course - other than describing the Holocaust and the writings we were studying. In this sense, there was no attempt to assert any hermeneutical view of the Holocaust. Though I couldn't help myself from writing along those lines. I don't think I was greatly influenced by the class dynamics regarding what I wrote - in fact, being a 46-year old sophomore grants me some license with the professors - as long as I write genuinely and thoughtfully, I have yet to hear from any of them that my perspectives are wrong. That may be a flaw regarding a liberal university - more form than substance - but that was the context from which the paper sprang from.
As for accounting for, or assigning meaning to, the Holocaust from a Christian perspective - that's a huge order. Does the Holocaust represent evil? If we answer "yes," then the Christian perspective must account for the existence of evil in creation - a theodicy. As creation emanates from God, and we hold God to be immutably good - this poses a contradiction if we allow that evil exists in creation. To resolve the contradiction a reasonable theodicy would have to somehow separate God from the evil we witness in human life. In effect, God cannot be culpable for evil.
A few of the more formidable challenges associated with a theodicy is 1) defining evil (not everyone agrees on what constitutes evil), and 2) the nature of divine foreknowledge or omniscience.
From that point, and considering the above challenges and others - countless theological volumes interpret Christian Scripture to provide for the existence of evil among men and defend the divine attributes of God. The strongest theodicies center on God's gift of free will to man - the subsequent fall based on free will (pride), and the separation of the creature from the Creator's will - hence man's bondage to sin within his own "will," a complete denial of God's grace.
There are some foundational issues regarding what is termed the "free will" defense. Martin Luther, in his "Bondage of the Will," asserts "It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks 'free will' flat, and utterly shatters it; so that those who want to assert it must either deny my bombshell, or pretend not to notice it, or find some other way of dodging it"(pg 80, 1957, Fleming H. Revell).
Luther's treatise calls into question what we mean when we say "free will." Luther holds that man is incapable of producing good solely from man's choice, all good originates with God. If we cannot produce good of our own accord, then, any discussion of choice is destroyed as a nonexistent fantasy. If we don't have choice, what accounts for evil? Salvation for man operates within a faithful submission to God as revealed in scripture - not the exercise of free will of man toward God.
Having said all of that - back to the original question - "How do we bring our Christian faith to bear on such an event?"
It seems to me we are left with only two answers. One, the Holocaust is a graphic representation of man's ability to commit evil separate from God's grace, or two, the Holocaust holds some deeper divine principle or meaning.
I favor the first answer - as it allows me a continued faith in God's grace without contradiction, and yet accounts for my general suspicion of natural man (myself included). Hence, there is no "meaning" to the Holocaust in that formulation other than a demonstration of man's capacity for evil - life apart from God is meaningless.
The second answer - significantly more challenging and uncomfortable - would suggest that there is a "meaning" to the Holocaust apart from man's capacity to commit evil. The concepts of divine omniscience, omnipotence, predestination, determinism, etc all enter the discussion at that point. To discern "meaning" at that level, I believe, would require that I know the mind of God.
These two positions are not mutually exclusive. That the ability for man to commit evil, or be evil, certainly fits most treatments of the fall and divine principles.
With that in mind, I stand by my original comment that we wouldn't know the true meaning of anything if it smacked us in the face. "Meaning" in this sense to be taken as a comprehension of the truth of the matter, the purpose, the goal, the end state being sought. Related to the Holocaust, or any other demonstration of evil, we would be well cautioned, as creatures, to avoid assigning meaning as to the necessity of the event - it is beyond our ability as creatures. So, in fact, we may very well be left just to mourn our nature apart from God.
I asked one Holocaust survivor who addressed our class if he might comment on his system of faith - did his experience fundamentally change his beliefs? I'll never forget his answer:
"I believed in God, and I have faith in God today - but the Holocaust didn't have anything to do with him."
That's the best that I can do.
Thanks again,
Scott
posted by Scott Scofield | 12:35 PM
2 Comments:
When it comes to the sticky wicket of theodicy, wrong answers seem to lurk at every turn. I find myself in general agreement with your take on this, Scott. Thanks.
I will also add a fine distinction I often make with regard to the matter. While God certainly knows all and is all powerful - we believers cannot "blame" him for evil, we can only blame our own sinful selves, other sinners, or the spiritual forces of evil. God is good.
However, we would certainly agree that our omnipotent God could prevent a certain evil should he so desire. Why did the Lord not prevent the Holocaust? We cannot know. Here is where the search for meaning from a Christian prespective might throw its hands in the air. Or better, offer what I call the "theological shrug" (and acknowledge the Deus Absconditus - the hiddenness of God).
Lutherans like me often refuse to explain what God does not explain (reveal) via his word.
Thank you for the comments, Sir;
Yes, while Omnipotent God could prevent evil - so why the Holocaust or Darfur or Rwanda or any other degradation of humanity? It is not a completely satisfying answer - nor particularly "theological" - but C.S. Lewis takes up the question in his "The Problem of Pain," as he holds, "We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the soundwaves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void...Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."
His argument is more elaborate than the excerpt above depicts - worth the reflection though.
Some run hot or cold on Lewis - I like his writing as he had the ability to take difficult concepts and represent them (pretty accurately) in layman terms.
Thanks again.
Scott
Post a Comment
<< Home