God and the Haiti Earthquake

Here I was primed to continue ruminations on evangelicals and marriage stuff when I learn about the awful 7.0 earthquake to hit Haiti near Port-au-Prince. One of the poorest countries in the world, Haiti had already taken a beating this last fall from hurricane after hurricane, leaving billions of dollars of damage and many hundreds dead. To have an earthquake--and such a powerful one--strike them after all that . . .

Well, it's one of those situations that skeptics commonly point to as evidence that 1) God doesn't exist; 2) God does exist but is powerless; or 3) God exists, is powerful, but isn't benevolent toward the very people--the least, the last, the lost, the poorest--God claims to care for most of all.

I gotta admit: I have trouble coming up with a satisfactory answer to that in the face of picture after picture of human loss, injury, and sorrow. I have more difficulty swallowing the ready-made apologetics (or, more properly theodicies--defenses of God's existence/goodness in the face of Evil) that often get offered up in response to the skeptics' attacks, though.

Some of my least favorites:

"God has a plan, and it all works out for the best." I don't want to be ungenerous. This kind of comment means well, seeking to reaffirm a faith in an ordered, ultimately God-ordained universe. In its best iterations, the comment comes packaged with a great deal of humility: "I don't pretend to understand why this happened..." It's the verbal equivalent of a sympathetic shrug and slow shake of the head accompanied by a retreat to core beliefs: God exists, even now.

And I like and respect that very last sentiment--God exists, even now. But I'm uncomfortable with the next logical question: so what? What does it mean that God exists? More--what does it mean that God "has a plan," that God ordains every single occurrence on earth? God caused an earthquake to strike a country like Haiti? God not only knocks Haiti down; God kicks it savagely? If God ordains every single natural event, pushing this shower here, setting off this volcano there, guiding this meteor into a crowded city--then I have to agree with the skeptics: that's a horrific image of God.

Because, let's face it: nature is mean. It's 100% fatal, in the long run. If the earthquakes don't get you, then the lightning will. Or the tornadoes, the hurricanes, the tsunami, the meteors... Or just plain old age. Nature is awesome and beautiful, yes, but it's also disease, disaster, and death. To live is to suffer, and I'm not OK with the notion of a God who directs that suffering.

"Tragedies like this are trials, but don't worry. God never tests us beyond our limit." Ugh. Such a rationale simultaneously trivializes massive catastrophe ("it's just a test") and aggravates divine brutality (i.e., God will kill thousands to test the faith of a few). And about that "God never tests us beyond our limit." If all human suffering is a test, then people get over-tested all the time. People die from cancer, from natural disasters, from accidents, from depression. The "suffering=test" equation invites grisly speculation about the worth or culpability of people who live and die for reasons frankly beyond their hope of controlling. Perhaps tests of faith do happen on the occasion of suffering, but I reject the notion that all suffering is only a test.

"This happens because of man's sin." Now, there are two versions of this comment/rationale. The first, the softer version, lays out that, because of Adam's original sin, death and suffering entered the world. Nature is mean because of what humans (Adam specifically, but all of us metaphorically) did. God's grace, in this view, is that God offers a way to transcend this mean, broken world.

The stronger version of this comment reads a direct cause-and-effect relationship between natural disasters and specific human sins. Katrina struck New Orleans, for example, because the city was so sinful, tolerating and celebrating debaucheries like homosexuality, fornication, drinking, etc. In its extreme form, the natural-disasters-result-from-sin argument characterizes folk like Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps, who argues stridently that we ought to thank God for events like 9-11 since such death/suffering is merely God's righteous punishment poured out upon a nation that has rejected God.

I trust the latter line of thinking needs little refutation. It's vile, creating a God who is not merely indifferent but actively petty, striking back at whole populations for the perceived sins of a few (of course, a die-hard Calvinist would insist that no one--not even the tiniest infant--is innocent; all humans deserve every kind of suffering imaginable). The softer version of this rationale--the world is broken because of man's sin--frankly doesn't quite avoid sharing some of this vileness, I fear. To view hundreds of people dead--men, women, children, old, young--and to attempt to set that into context by referring to original sin (literally or metaphorically) just reeks too much of the Phelpsian cause-and-effect mentality for me. God still remains a petty tyrant in this picture, throwing hurricanes at humans for eating some fruit.

So--where does that leave me? Faced with something like the Haiti earthquake, what is there to say about God?

I don't know. The suggestions I offer to myself, though, go something like this: 1) Tamp down the desire to "say something" grand or comforting or explanatory. It's not likely to help. 2) Remember that the answer to "where is God?" can nearly always be found by looking for the neighbor in need. Right now, God is in Haiti, suffering from pain and loss. 3) Remember that I am called to be the neighbor to my neighbor, the help, the comfort, the sustenance--as much as I can be. Not having medical skills or the ability to drop everything, fly down, and start saving people (Grand Hero), I can make donations to organizations like UMCOR who can and will provide help. 4) Pray. Ask God to help those in Haiti and those helping them. Ask God where God is. Listen for an answer.

Hope.


More tomorrow,

JF