Natural disasters like the recent Haiti earthquake make God’s apparent absence all the more conspicuous. Where was God? Why would a loving God allow such immense suffering?
Today, on the Christian Broadcasting Network, televangelist Pat Robertson volunteered an answer. He claims that Haiti has long since been under a curse, having sworn a “pact to the Devil” in return for independence from French colonial rule. The earthquake, then, is just the latest visitation of that curse upon Haiti.
Robertson has also blamed Katrina on abortion and 9/11 on the increasing secularization of America.
I think these statements are disgusting and callous—a total slap in the face to the victims of said tragedies. I wonder, though, how many Americans are sympathetic to Robertson’s explanations. Those who believe in the Bible and/or the Book of Mormon literally certainly couldn’t deny that God has at times manifest his wrath in natural disasters. Untold millions are killed by the God of these books through global floods, earthquakes, plagues, etc. It was once even a popular Mormon belief that people in disaster-prone areas did something in their pre-mortal life to merit the disasters. Consider this brief excerpt from Apostle Mark E. Petersen’s 1954 address at Brigham Young University:
Can we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Latter-day Saints. There are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds…
A question to the theist readers of this blog: What role does God play in natural disasters, if any? And if God doesn’t cause these disasters, why doesn’t he at least prevent them?
I’m curious how believers reconcile the suffering in the world with their notions of God. The problem of suffering ought to be the source of many sleepless nights for theists, in my opinion.
But while your theodices will be of interest to me, the people of Haiti need something more right now. To anyone reading this, please make a donation to any (or all) of the following organizations:
Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/
Partners in Health: http://www.pih.org/home.html
Doctors Without Borders: http://doctorswithoutborders.org/
The International Rescue Committee: https://www.theirc.org/
LDS Humanitarian Services: give.lds.org/emergencyresponse
Catholic Relief Services: http://www.catholicrelief.org/
Skeptics and Humanist Aid and Relief Effort (SHARE): https://secure.ga1.org/05/share_earthquake_in_haiti
Or do what I did—donate $10 automatically via text message to the Red Cross by texting “HAITI” to 90999. Texters will then be billed for the donation on their next cell phone bill.
If you know of other organizations that I should include in my list, please let me know.
Pat Robertson’s comments are particularly vile with respect to Haiti because it’s the only nation in the world that was the result of a successful slave uprising. To marginalize that by suggesting that it was only accomplished with help from Satan is horrible.
Although I guess when it comes to slavery, the Bible is on his side.
Of course if a natural disaster struck in Pat Robertson’s town it would be God testing his faith and not because he had sinned.
I continue to be amazed at comments like this from Robertson. I know there are lots of Christians who hold such views, though I can honestly say that I do not know any personally. I certainly hope that any Christians that believe such things become disabused of such absurd notions. Robertson and his ilk are a real embarrassment. I hope it is understood that such beliefs are not essential to the Christian faith. Thoughtful Christians completely reject such things. I am saddened that so many fall prey to opportunists like Robertson.
Worth noting that Haiti is a deeply religious and Christian country. Something like 80% of Haitians are Catholic. Of course, Robertson probably does not think Catholics are Christians.
There are really two aspects to the problem of evil. The problem of moral evil (murder, rape, etc) and the problem of natural evil and suffering (tsunamis, earthquake deaths, infant cancer, etc). I wholeheartedly agree with Jon – the problem of evil/suffering is not easy to smooth over, and Christians should take the problem very seriously. In fact, Aquinas remarks that there are only two good reasons to not believe in God – the problem of evil and the problem of miracles. I think without a doubt the problem of suffering/natural evil is the far more serious problem of the two aspects.
Of course, explanations like Robertson’s do make things tidier when it comes to sorting out the problem of evil/suffering. Playing the “they deserved it” game excuses you from one aspect of the problem of evil because it reduces the problem of evil to just the problem of moral evil.
This is not a cop-out, but I really don’t have time to develop a response. Another theist reader of this blog will need to make the argument this time. Or go to Peter Kreeft’s talk in Salt Lake later this month (see usuphilosophy.com for info), which is on ‘Why is there suffering?’. I will say that I think the problem of suffering is ultimately rooted in the problem of moral evil. One must say this, as it were, on pain of sourcing evil in God (who is Good). But I would appeal to the fall and original sin, vicarious suffering and vicarious atonement – something far from the more immediate sort of thing that Robertson indicates. But at the end of the day I think theodicy has to return to awe. “Where were you at the foundation of the world?”
As far as charities: Catholic Relief Services has, as I understand it, a substantial presence in Haiti and has/had in-place system and infrastructure for distributing goods. Perhaps SHAFTers won’t want to give to a religious charity, but here is their site:
http://www.catholicrelief.org/
“A question to the theist readers of this blog: What role does God play in natural disasters, if any? And if God doesn’t cause these disasters, why doesn’t he at least prevent them?”
While I don’t fully 100% buy into the ‘soul making’ theodicy I sometimes I think it offers the best explanation. I can agree with John Hick when he says “For if our general conception of God’s purpose is correct the world is not intended to be a paradise, but rather the scene of a history in which human personality may be formed towards the pattern of Christ. Men are not to be though of on the analogy of animal pets, whose life is to be made as agreeable as possible, but rather on the analogy of human children, who are to grow to adulthood in an environment whose primary and overriding purpose is not immediate pleasure but the realizing of the most valuable potentialities of human personality.”
And while I think the people in Haiti can be used instrumentally in giving us opportunity to donate time, money, and service and thus become more like the creatures God intends us to be – I further believe that God cares and will treat each person who has suffered there more than just an instrument for others but that he can and will make each individual’s life of great positive value to them. My personal hope is that God is great enough to be able to make each person’s life so valuable to them that they wouldn’t regret any of horrors they suffered.
So to answer the question, I don’t know if God plays an active role in each disaster, but I completely submit that he has responsibility in not preventing it when he could. – As for His reasons for not preventing them, – I hold out on hope that his reasons are teleological rather than punitive. I gladly cut myself from both Pat Robertson and Elder Petersen in that aspect.
Thank you Jon for listing those organizations and the number for the red cross by the way.
As a different kind of theist, here’s my take.
I can sum up my beliefs as follows: Mortal existence lacks any inherent higher purpose. There is a world which is usually unseen, which affects this world, and which we can affect. There are things in that world which are both beneficent, and malevolent. The beings we call gods are powerful beings in the other world which have allied themselves to humanity, or specific groups of humans and offer them a higher purpose, and direction. Their power is not omnipotent, and mythical sources often demonstrate the limits of the gods power.
Earthquakes are a natural phenomena, which may, or may not be caused by malevolent spirits. Because the gods are not omnipotent they may not be able to change the effects of the actions taken by an evil spirit, or stop an inevitable natural occurrence. Overall the role of the gods is rarely to act directly in the physical world, but to guide and teach humanity. So the role of god in natural disasters is… to teach us to be strong enough to survive them, and maybe take action if they are a “supernatural” rather than natural disaster.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone.
To Eric: How do you read 3 Nephi 9, where God boasts about the natural disasters he visited upon the Book of Mormon civilizations? Do you understand this to be an actual episode in history?
Well Jon, I’m still doing my own research on how I take the BoM to be historically, (and thus haven’t posted on your link LDS understanding of the BoM. So I have no answer for you at this time as if I understand it to be an actual episode –
But I can answer it this way. If I were to take it as an actual historical episode, it obviously was a time in which God choose to play in active role in those disasters. If this were the case I can look at it many different ways. First, the account is given through a historian-prophet who has his own perception/theodicy of God’s use of natural disasters. Second, 3 Nephi 9, while presenting a disaster that is punitive, this doesn’t mean that all natural disasters are. Indeed God ‘chastises those he loves’ as well. I think we would be foolish to assume that only the ‘wicked’ died in the account- and I’m sure children and others who were ‘spotless’ also perished in the cities of Zarahemla, Moronihah, and Gilgal. And if there were innocent among them, God’s purposes couldn’t have only been to punish. In fact verse 9 states his purpose ‘Behold I come unto the world to bring redemption unto the world, to save the world from sin.’ – To the best that I can hope for, God’s use of this natural disaster, was the best option in persuading free agents (both in this world and in the spirit world) to turn to Christ and thus move further along the lines of progression. And while as a being with finite understand, I admit I complain that his ways of ‘helping us along’ suck, I am hopeful that God knows what he is doing.
Lastly, as I mentioned before I hold out on hope that God is so creative and loving that he will be able to make each experience we go through of infinite worth. This means I believe that even those that were being ‘punished’ will be able to look back at the suffering and see it as worthwhile and thus the ‘punishment’ becomes something they will look on in great gratitude. Further, I’m a universalist, and I believe that eventually everyone will eventually come to the same state. My gospel is one of hope despite harsher interpretations of scripture.
“I think we would be foolish to assume that only the ‘wicked’ died in the account.”
vs.
“O all ye that are spared because ye were more righteous than they, will ye not now return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you?” — 3 Ne 9:13
Your redemptive theology isn’t much different from what Robertson said about Haiti, mind you. He said that it was largely punitive, but that through this disaster, he hopes the people of Haiti are humbled and finally turn to God.
“And while as a being with finite understand, I admit I complain that his ways of ‘helping us along’ suck, I am hopeful that God knows what he is doing.”
Ha ha, fair enough. This kind of faith–”I am hopeful that God knows what he is doing”–doesn’t work for me personally. It almost reminds me of battered woman syndrome, where, despite all the abuse, the spouse/girlfriend is still convinced that the abuser loves her. Granted, God is different in that he is supposedly all-knowing, but I don’t see that as self evident. Moreover, natural disasters like that one that struck Haiti don’t get me questioning God’s omniscience so much as his omnibenevolence (not to mention his very existence, of course).
“Further, I’m a universalist, and I believe that eventually everyone will eventually come to the same state. My gospel is one of hope despite harsher interpretations of scripture.”
I’m not convinced that universal salvation after this life excuses the suffering in the here and now. But that aside, I’m curious what your doctrinal grounds for being a universalist are. Is there anything in Mormonism that allows for a universalist interpretation? I see glimpses of it in the BoM, I guess–perhaps a reflection of Joseph Smith Sr.’s universalism. But otherwise, I’m curious how you’d scripturally justify your belief. Note that I’m not saying that you can’t–I have a number of universalist-leaning Mormon friends, so I’m open to just having misread Mormon teachings. I just want to hear more of your thoughts on the subject.
Below is a link to an article worth reading. It is incredibly insightful, sharp, and pointed. David Hart is a top shelf intellectual. He takes on atheists (he is really snarky here, but I think it is funny and frankly accurate). But also takes on theists who would rationalize evil as part of a ‘trial’ or as some means by which God ‘teaches us a lesson’ or ‘improves us’ (this is almost always what I hear from Mormons). This is, Hart thinks, a morally obnoxious view of God – that He would achieve his ends by way of every cruel and catastrophic suffering the world has known.
http://firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/01/tsunami-and-theodicy
“Lastly, as I mentioned before I hold out on hope that God is so creative and loving that he will be able to make each experience we go through of infinite worth. This means I believe that even those that were being ‘punished’ will be able to look back at the suffering and see it as worthwhile and thus the ‘punishment’ becomes something they will look on in great gratitude.”
I find this kind of thinking to be more or less abhorrent. I think any reasonable system of ethics (one a deity would presumably follow) should not allow the ends to justify the means in the way you imply. At least for anything above the level of a personal setback.
I often hear Mormon Utahns talk about God allowing hardships in order to ultimately lead to personal growth and greater understanding. Although most of the time in this context, “hardship” usually means bombing a midterm, enduring a flat tire, or even moderate problems like sustaining a personal injury or losing a family member. This is not even close to the level of what happened in Haiti.
The most recent Haitian government estimates are 100,000 direct dead from the quake itself (Red Cross is saying 50-60k). Indirect deaths might climb hundreds of thousands higher in the coming months. I think the kind of soul-building theodicy that is often used to explain disasters falls apart when an omnipotent and infinitely creative being is supposed to have been responsible. I can think of several ways a being who can do anything could accomplish its goals without killing a hundred thousand people.
Here’s an example I saw on a blog comment, originally from someone on that commenter’s Facebook (text is unchanged):
~~X X: praying for everyone in Haiti after that 7.0 earthquake… was listening to the radio this morning on the way to work and they read a quote from a man’s ‘tweet’ from down in Haiti: “Everything ‘important’ suddenly became unimportant today”… God works in mysterious ways in order to get our attention. What will it take… for you to realize what’s ‘important’?~~
This is way worse in some ways than what Pat Robertson said. At least in his mind they deserved it. But in this person’s view, God deliberately killed (or failed to save — same apparent effect) a very large number of innocent people just so the rest of the world can think about what’s “important”. This is exactly the same as what you’re saying here:
“And while I think the people in Haiti can be used instrumentally in giving us opportunity to donate time, money, and service and thus become more like the creatures God intends us to be”
Frankly, I consider this to be an insidiously evil way of thinking.
One last thing. I see this all the time in these sorts of discussions:
“Men are not to be though of on the analogy of animal pets, whose life is to be made as agreeable as possible, but rather on the analogy of human children, who are to grow to adulthood in an environment whose primary and overriding purpose is not immediate pleasure but the realizing of the most valuable potentialities of human personality.”
Children need to have novel, challenging experiences that stretch them outside their comfort levels–with an adult there to guide them. Eventually, they need to learn to be their own people and shoulder their own decisions and responsibilities. No disagreement from me on that. However, I don’t think this analogy comes anywhere close to helping explain why God would allow to happen (or, horribly enough, cause directly) disasters like this earthquake or the 2005 tsunami. In the case of actual children, some pains are so extreme that they are traumatizing and stunting, and do not induce personal growth. It’s like the difference between the pain of muscle soreness after hard work and exercise, and getting stabbed.
As for free-will events like the Holocaust (or the genocides that have happened before or since), how far does the free-will argument stretch? Suppose humanity really is like a child and needs “life lessons” in order to grow up. Children do not have full autonomy, nor should parents allow it. Some mistakes are so large (or fatal) that any parent who lets their kid make them will probably go to prison. Letting your two year old stick a fork in a socket is child negligence. I think genocide is one such mistake, and any deity worth respecting ought to override our free will (or even just the free will of the dictator involved–and there’s pretty much always one involved) and prevent it.
“O all ye that are spared because ye were more righteous than they, will ye not now return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you?” — 3 Ne 9:13
Jon, I don’t see how this excludes that righteous died in the event. – While it seems obvious that those that survived were at least partial righteous, this does not entail that those that were not spared were not partial righteous as well.
James, First, I already mentioned that I don’t completely buy into the ‘soul building’ – but I think its one of the best explanations a theist has. secondly, you misquoted me above the people in Haiti being instrumental, I follow it saying “I further believe that God cares and will treat each person who has suffered there more than just an instrument for others but that he can and will make each individual’s life of great positive value to them. My personal hope is that God is great enough to be able to make each person’s life so valuable to them that they wouldn’t regret any of horrors they suffered.”
Also, I agree with you that I at times I can find God’s ways abhorrent (yet I admit I don’t understand the full picture… And unlike the atheist, I’m fine with it)- That’s part of the problem of evil and I find a partial solution in universalism. However, – taking a moment to defend the ‘soul building’ theodicy John Hicks address this problem at the end of his book Evil and the God of Love, asking if God can be justified in using the suffering to bring about a greater good, “But we believe or disbelieve, ultimately, out of our own experience and must be faithful to the witness of that experience…I therefore end by formulating this ultimate question which lies at the heart of the theodicy-problem: can there be a future good so great as to render acceptable, in retrospect, the whole human experience, with all its wickedness and suffering as well as all its sanctity and happiness? I think that perhaps there can, and indeed that perhaps there is.”
I want to finish – but I’m afraid that’ll have to wait. I’ll finish later.
Sorry about the misquote.
If you believe that some potential future good is incredibly large (or infinite?) enough to justify the entire storied history of human suffering, that puts you on slightly more solid ground. But I still don’t think its all that solid.
Firstly, I don’t think ends ever justify terrifying means, no matter how great those ends are. That’s the exact justification for the extreme measures that are typically taken during Communist uprisings (Sorry Aaron, if you see this).
Second, I find it very, very hard to believe a “perfect” deity would even need to resort to methods like that. Even for our human-scale problems, there’s always a more subtle and nuanced solution. Unless God is somehow constrained or limited to choose that option after exhausting all others–and as I say above, I don’t think the free will argument is enough to show this. And really, God should have infinite actions available to reach his goals.
Finally, there’s the entire open question of “what evidence do you have that this future good even exist?”, let alone the evidence for God’s (or gods of any type) existence.
Gawd I can’t stand this a$$hole.
“Our faith is in a God who has come to rescue His creation from the absurdity of sin and the emptiness of death, and so we are permitted to hate these things with a perfect hatred. For while Christ takes the suffering of his creatures up into his own, it is not because he or they had need of suffering, but because he would not abandon his creatures to the grave.”
I liked that quote, Kleiner. It contrasts nicely with the Mormon idea that the fall was a great thing because then we get bodies (or whatever). I was raised with that idea, and it’s a lot nicer to say that God didn’t need you to suffer than to say that this whole thing was always part of God’s plan. I’m not sure it’s an easier position to defend, but you get points for acknowledging that yes, evil really is just evil.
Okay to continue,
James,
“I find this kind of thinking to be more or less abhorrent. I think any reasonable system of ethics (one a deity would presumably follow) should not allow the ends to justify the means in the way you imply. At least for anything above the level of a personal setback.”
I see what you mean. I also understand Ivan’s Karmazov’s complaints as well as the complaints set up by Kleiner’s article. – Soul-building theodicies unfortunately find themselves in that quandary of appearing to lessen God’s goodness in the way he interacts with us. However, before the development of any theodicy we unfortunately we are placed in an anguished and terrible world of suffering. The world isn’t at all times a kind and good place. We reach a point of existential crisis and reach for meaning for the suffering we go through. Here I think however comparatively doesn’t the soul-building theodicy offer something better than an atheistic world view? I personally find the atheist’s view far more abhorrent. That the people in Haiti suffer and die and the universe just doesn’t care. How abhorrent is that? How terrible is that? That there honestly is no justice? That there is no retribution or redemption of the pains suffered? That my only help is relying on my finite and fallen companions here on earth. – At least in the soul-building theodicy there is a point to my suffering. There is redemption. There is retribution granted by a power greater than my own. – While swallowing the idea that suffering is meant for learning is hard to do, swallowing the idea that suffering is pointless and undefeatable is worse yet.
Either way, I see your point. I think Christians absolutely find themselves in a quandary in justifying God. One of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis is one of despair. ““Sometimes it is hard not to say, ‘God forgive God.’ Sometimes it is hard to say so much. But if our faith is true, He didn’t. He crucified Him.” – Whether or not the soul-building theodicy is true, Christians seem to have to acknowledge that redemption came through immense SUFFERING on a cross. The good news of Christianity is that God has the ability to make suffering meaningful and/or in the end defeat it.
“Finally, there’s the entire open question of “what evidence do you have that this future good even exist?”, let alone the evidence for God’s (or gods of any type) existence.”
I rely on the arguement from spiritual experiences and hope. If I had any greater proof, trust me I’d give it to you -
Jon,
My belief in universalism has been influenced first outside of mormonism by theologians like John Hick, Marilyn Adams, Karl Barth, Richard Beck, and William James and then incorporated in by my own interpretations of the purpose of temple work, God’s work and glory being our exaltation, and viewing of the unforgiven son’s of perdition as a choice granted to them rather than consequence.
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Personal Entrance/Exit Stories! | Main Street Plaza
There are, of course, stupid nuts on all sides. Danny Glover recently blamed the Haiti quake on the inaction at Copenhagen on climate change. Neither Robertson nor Glover are right, though I must say Robertson’s view is actually more plausible than Glover’s!
How We Should Respond to the Haitian Crisis
by Eli Brayley
As the world witnesses the horror of human suffering in the wake of the earthquake that decimated the Haitian capital early this year, we must not naively turn away from asking the hard questions, nor settle for the easy answers.
There is something about a natural disaster that leaves us feeling helpless – in fact, that is what they are intended to do. A natural disaster cannot be controlled or anticipated. We are shaken out of our modern delusions of grandeur and are reminded that we, as men, are weak, small, pathetic, and are still at the mercy of the One Who created and rules over nature. The Bible has much to say about natural disasters, yet even those who claim to believe the Scriptures often fail in correctly interpreting such disasters. We are more comfortable saying it was a “tragedy” rather than a “judgment”. The latter certainly is not a popular message; actually, we may be hated for saying it. Nevertheless, we must be true, not popular.
The prophet Amos, speaking by inspiration, said, “When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” (Amos 3:6) The historical and prophetic message of the Bible is full of examples proving this point. Nature is no longer in its original state of blessing because God cursed it as punishment for our first parent’s sin (Gen. 3:17-19). The greatest natural disaster the world has ever known, the Flood, was directly instigated by God on account of mankind’s evil and corrupt works, and nowhere is God ashamed to own that disaster as His doing. “And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.” (Gen. 6:17) The destruction of the Egyptians by the ten plagues (Exodus 7-12), the calamities that befell the disobedient nation the Israel (Lev. 26:14-39), and the yet future outpouring of the wrath of God upon the earth (Rev. 15-16), to name a few, are all manifestly declared to be the direct doing of God. In fact, God is jealous that we do not confuse who is really bringing these disasters lest we think that He has not done them (Lev. 26:42, Deut. 32:27)! There is no sense in blushing for God when He Himself is not ashamed. Perhaps the greatest lesson that we must learn about God is that God is a God of judgment.
We are horrified to think that God would do such things because we do not see disaster as judgment upon sin. We have a naive view of ourselves as morally good, and therefore the thought that God would do such things to innocent and good people is for us a cause to accuse God of sin! Many people, attempting to defend God (as if He needed defending!) suggest that disasters are not from God at all, but are just unfortunate happenstance. I do not know which interpretation is worse. It is only because we are unwilling to own up to our sin, and that we are in fact sinners, and that God is just in judging us for our sins, that we either accuse God of being an evil tyrant or an impotent bystander. Our proud unwillingness to consider the Biblical message of sin and judgment is the best proof of the reality of our sin and God’s just judgment against it.
How then should we interpret the present crisis in Haiti? To begin with, we must come to understand that this disaster is, as all such disasters are, a judgment of God against sin. These things do not happen by accident, as if God was clumsy, nor arbitrarily, as if God was cruel. Jesus prophesied that as the age draws to a close earthquakes and other natural disasters would become more and more frequent and intense. “And great earthquakes shall be in various places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.” (Luke 21:11) These “beginnings of birth pangs” (Matt. 24:8) will find their culmination in the final outpouring of judgment upon the world at the end of the age (Rev. 16:18). Therefore such disasters should not surprise us. It is essential that we see such disasters as from God.
But it is also absolutely essential that we see these disasters as judgment from God against all sin. An earthquake did not strike in Haiti because they are worse sinners there than in any other part of the world. If we know that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom. 1:18) then truly in any place and at any time could such an earthquake happen. This is true of all calamity, whether it be an earthquake or a mere car wreck. “And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.’” (Luke 13:2-5) What happened in Haiti did not just happen to them, but to all mankind as a corporate body of sinners, and should cause all men to repent and confess their sins to God, turning to Him through Christ for reconciliation.
The third most important thing we must understand about the Haitian crisis is that God’s judgments are actually mercies from Him, “Who desires all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). God sends His judgments so that men can see and understand the truth about their sin and and the reality of His justice. How else can be we awakened from our egotistical self-righteous stupor when we are unwilling to consider the plain Scriptural revelation? God chastises the world in love, but, as we have seen from the past, the pride of mankind does not humble itself so easily. Pharoah did not humble himself after the first judgment, nor the second, nor the third, nor the fourth, fifth, sixth, etc… up to the tenth; and even after the loss of his own son he did not humble himself, but pursued the Israelites through the Sea unto his death. What will it take to humble mankind? We are informed by the Scriptures that this Haitian crisis will not be the last. “If men will not repent when God gives opportunity through calamity, then we open ourselves for yet a greater suffering.” (Art Katz) God is sending a message to the world: Acknowledge your offenses and humble yourselves, and turn to the Lord your God. It is because God loves the world that He sends these judgments.
“The Lord is known by the judgment which He executes.” (Psalm 9:16) To embrace the truth about God’s judgment is to embrace the truth about the cross of Jesus Christ, and to find there the mercy and forgiveness which we as sinful people so desperately need. God publicly set forth Christ as a propitiation in His blood for all men to see, and by seeing the cross of Christ as the judgment of God against sin we see the horrid revelation of what are sin is and the inflexible holiness of God in His justice. But we also see, most of all, the incomprehensible love of God that eclipses all love we have ever known. For it was there on the cross that God the Son suffered in the place of sinful men so that the grace of forgiveness might flow freely to lost, guilty sinners. The broken body and shed blood of Jesus Christ for the world is all that is needed to reconcile sinful men and women to God. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36) Every chastisement that we experience from God should cause us to stop and consider that one great Chastisement from which comes our peace with God (Isaiah 53:5). But how long will men refuse to look?
A final word: What shall we say about those precious believers in Christ who are suffering immensely in the wake of this judgment? Shall we say that for them it is only unfortunate happenstance? We dare not. We must remember Job’s faith-filled words which he uttered on the day of his calamity: “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” (Job 1:21) As we learn from the patience of Job, for God’s people suffering has an entirely different purpose. It accomplishes two things: one, it teaches us how much God truly loves us, for He disciplines us for our own good that we may be a partakers in His holiness (Heb. 12:10). As Christians, we all have many rough edges, and only through suffering can we learn to draw near to Him, to forget ourselves in Him, and to trust wholeheartedly in His goodness. Secondly, suffering works into us compassion and empathy for others who suffer, for even as Christ our High Priest had to learn this also through suffering, so must we as “a nation of priests” learn compassion through suffering. “For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to help them that are tempted.” (Heb. 2:18) “For we have not a High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:14; see also 2 Corinthians 1:3-7) For Christians, as it was with Christ, suffering does not mean judgment against sin, for we, as He, are sinless in the sight of God. But as all suffering is ultimately related to sin, Christ identified with sinners in their suffering so that He could be a merciful and compassionate High Priest. In the same way God causes His people to suffer for their good, to learn to trust Him, and for the good of others, to learn to empathize with sinners.
Let us identify with the sufferers in Haiti at this time. Let us not gloat over them and think that we are any better than they are, or that they are any worse than we are. Let us see this earthquake as a judgment from God against all sin, Who is both just and merciful in all His deeds. Let us learn to know God in His judgments, and God as a God of judgment, that we may see the glory of the crucified Christ as crucified for our sins. Let us not persist in naive and unreal thoughts about our supposed ‘goodness’ as people, but humble ourselves as sinners before the Lord, taking refuge in His blood. If we do not learn from these judgments we can only expect to receive worse from God’s hand, until all the world finally knows that He alone is God, and that before Him we are all as but a drop in a bucket.