On "Fairness"

One of the top ten sermon cliches is "fairness." As soon, as I say that word, you know what I mean. It always comes up with the theodicy portion of whatever the topic is. Something will come up like death, or earthquakes, or world hunger. For the handful of people who don't know what theodicy means, the pastor will ask how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God let bad things happen. The pastor will adopt a whiny voice and ask, "But why isn't the world fair?"

Next, the pastor will grin. Because he thinks his whiny voice was amusing. "Well," he'll say. "I'm very glad the world isn't fair. I'm very glad God isn't fair. Because if God was fair He would have every right to send me to hell for my sins."

The idea is that God isn't the one mucking things up. It's us humans who created the whole shitstorm by eating from the wrong tree, and we've carried on the legacy ever since.

Just today I realized how bizarre this argument is. As Inigo Montoya would say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Not only is human evil a bad answer to the question of why God allows evil in the world, I don't think it's even answering the same question.

Imagine you see someone molesting a child. Would it really comfort you to think, "Yes, that adult's actions are bad. But what God wants to do to that little child is an infinity of times worse"?

Think about it.

Pointing to some terrible suffering, and saying God could do so much worse (in fact his nature demands it) is the opposite of comforting. This goes beyond God causing the evil in the world or passively allowing evil to happen. It portrays a God who looks down on the petty misery we unleash on each other and goes, "Hah! Amateurs!"

Now, I guess you could say "The point is he could send us all to hell and he doesn't! He just sends most of us. See how nice God can be?"

If he still had to torture himself, does that mean he's a masochist?

Also, how is this not, "Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about?"

I'm even sure this particular theodicy is in the bible. That human suffering is no problem because we're all sinful anyway and deserve worse. Actually, it does sound a lot like Paul and his whole predestination rant.

Interestingly, there are characters in the Bible who ask almost this exact question of theodicy. In fact, the disciples actually make it easy on Jesus by assuming from the get go that sin has to be involved in some way.

Here's John 9:1-5 (NIV version)

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. ² His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
³ “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. ⁴ As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. ⁵ While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”⁶ 
 After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. ⁷ “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

Huh. 

It's almost as if Jesus doesn't think human sin caused this man's disability. Almost like his reaction is compassion instead of self-righteousness. Like, instead of explaining away another person's suffering, his job is to help. And he's got a limited window to heal people while he's on earth, but he's going to do as much as he can.

If someone asks me, "If God is good why is there evil and death and sickness in the world? How is that fair? " my answer is, "I don't know. You're right. It's not fair. Let's try to make it better."

Or maybe God just smited that guy so He could look really awesome healing him later. In that case we can all just sit on our butts and debate theology.