The Problem of Evil: An Army Chaplain Struggles With Why Evil Exists

This is a paper I deliver at chaplain school recently. If you want to debate it theologically understand that I only have time to sleep 5 hours a night, that is first on my list =)

One of, if not the, chief problem of the Western theological tradition is reconciling the presence and power of evil with an all-good and all-powerful God. If God were all-powerful, it would seem that He has the ability to stop evil if He would just so desire. If God were all-good, it would seem He would intervene and put an end to the world’s evils. Yet evil is still a present reality. The question my soldiers will ask is simply “Why?” Rightly so. Marriages end, limbs and lives are lost and still soldiers are told to believe in the all-powerful/all-good God who willed everything to happen before the world was created and then stands by idle as the evil of the world unfolds.
The traditional, Hellenistically influenced, model of divine perfection stipulates that in every respect God is unchanging. I disagree. How can we hold that God is unchanging when in Christ we see the second person of the Trinity become man? “The Word was made flesh” (John 1:14). How can we assert that the Holy One is unchanging when Paul tells us that God became something He was previously not: He “became sin for us…” (2 Cor. 5:21). If God is capable and willing to participate in something that is antithetical to His holy nature (e.g. sin) then He clearly is capable of significant change.
A Christocentric conception of God clearly shows us that God is not a timeless, unchanging being but rather one who loves and responds to His creation. He responded to our desperate and fallen condition by becoming one of us and dying for us. Thus any assertion that God is “too exalted” to be genuinely affected by humanity is not sufficiently centered on the cross of Jesus. The cross revealed that God’s deity is not the absence of change but perfect change motivated by love. God is not “above” suffering or being affected by his creation; He is responsive and able to suffer for the sake of love.
Jesus responded to suffering while on the earth. What we learn about God from the ministry of Jesus directly contradicts the classical Hellenistic assumptions of impassibility. In Luke 13 Jesus healed a woman who was “bent over and unable to stand up straight” (Luke 13:11). Jesus did not offer her the counsel many Christians would have: “From the smallest thing to the greatest thing, good and evil, happy and sad, pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure – God governs them all for his wise and just good purposes.”[1] Jesus did not tell the woman those eighteen years of pain were part of God’s “secret plan” for the greater good. Jesus said the infirmity was from Satan who was resisting God’s will. He then demonstrated the Father’s will by opposing Satan and healing the woman. This incident seems to suggest that evil is not from the hand of the Father or part of His secret plan but rather from the antithesis of God, Satan.
Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, later summarized the ministry of Jesus: He went about “healing all who were oppressed by the devil” (Acts 10:38). The principal reason Jesus came to earth was to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8). This does not imply that Jesus and the Apostles understood all sickness and evil as caused directly by Satan or demons. But it does imply that God’s will is not the only determining factor involved in these matters. The New Testament espouses a warfare motif. Evil forces and human agents, via their free will, affect the outcome of things. Tragedy and evil find their genesis in these wills, not God’s.
Jesus, and the Apostles do not teach that pain, evil and affliction are part of God’s secret plan. Rather they suggest that the cosmos is engaged in warfare. Evil spirits, Satan, and human beings oppose God. Simply put, the source of evil is not from a God who pre-organized every wicked event in history but a God who, as the ultimate act of love, created humans and angels with the capability to resist His will.
One mistake of platonic Christians is the assumption God is all-powerful and therefore He must exercise all power. God is completely comfortable allowing His creation to exercise the free will He gave them. In my view, God’s “all-powerfulness” means that God is the ultimate source of power. Again, a christocentric worldview will show that God is so sovereign that He doesn’t need to always get His way. His power allows for change. To paraphrase theologian Greg Boyd “The ability to change is not a defect but a virtue the Almighty possesses.”[2]
When God chose to create a cosmos where agents are cable of love He also chose to create a cosmos where agents are free not to choose love. Love, by its nature, demands choice. This means that God will not and cannot revoke an agent’s freedom even when that agent chooses to act in non-loving ways. If God revoked freedom when humans used it in evil ways then we would not be free to love. For love to exist existentially it must have an antithesis.
God, therefore is not to blame for evil. God can’t prevent all evil, not because He lacks power but because that is the cosmos He chose to create, one where free agents exist. We can’t hold God morally responsible for His creatures no more than we can parents for their adult children. Free choice is the ultimate explanation for evil. Most importantly, however, is that God won the battle against evil on the cross. This victory will be fully realized when Jesus returns.

[1] Piper, John: “Why I Do Not Say, ‘God Did Not Cause The Calamity But He Can Use It For Good,” Paper from Piper’s website Desiring God Ministries, September 17, 2001.
[2] Boyd, Greg: “God of the Possible,” (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 145.

US Army Chaplain School Update

Times have been rather busy lately and I've had little time to post. Over the past three weeks we did a field exercise, repelled Victory Tower, were instructed on first aid and went through the God-awful NBC chamber. Now that sucked: I think I'll write a book "15 Seconds in Hell." Here are a few pictures - enjoy.

The wonderful "privilege" of shaving my head.

Chaplain Lans, our Rabbi. He will be coming on AD soon - one good chaplain.

Myself and chaplain Deveyra

My battle buddy, chaplain Irwin. Interestingly he's from Clinton MS. When I lived in MS we were only about 20 min. apart. This picture was during the tactical radio class. Sorry Irwin, I know this isn't your best picture but it's all I have at present.

This is what happens when an incompetent E-5 idiot tries, and I emphasize tries, to "take blood."

This is yours truly exiting the NBC chamber. It sucked! Bad. But some of the other guys had it worse.

My friend, chaplain, father, "Fig" is having a hard time.

This one kills me, he came out screaming like heck.

Chaplain School Begins

The nature of my blog will change while I am in chaplain school. I hope to allow friends and family see what it's like here. I just arrived, I must admit I honestly thought the lodging would be bad, really bad. After all I was in the Air Force before and everyone knows the Air Force is the best right; "quality of life" right? Well I was pleasantly surprised, the Army came through - Hooah! Even better than my Air force officer school.

This picture was somewhere in GA, I thought it was pretty.

Shhhhhhhhh, it's our secret. It was drive fast or be ran over, what can I say.

I've got a desk, a TV and a couch in the living room. This view is from the kitchen.

That's not bad for a kitchen is it? Thank God predestination shined on me and I was given Dozier Hall. Hey dad, I bet enlisted training wasn't like this!

Here's my bed room for the next three months.

Pax Vobiscum,

Marshall Eddie L. Long Takes Stupidity to New Levels

So I got home from church and turned on my HDTV. Figured I wanted a good laugh so cruised by the “religious” networks. And sure enough I got one. There he was, Bishop Eddie L. Long in all his glory; screaming, raising hell and dressed as a police officer. I couldn’t resist…… I just HAD to have a picture to remember this.

As a demonstration of his “authority” the ‘bishop’ dressed for the job; he let the audience know that he “is the sheriff in town” and by God if you don't like it shove it! But, keeping with his good will and humble (and never bombastic I might add…) ways he decided to “transfer” his authority to his church. Yup, that’s the way it happened. Dang.... Dang...........

Humm… perhaps all priests, bishops and ministers should ditch their clericals and opt for the newest line of clothing; “The Marshall” will be hitting the stores soon. Get there early if you want your size, I’m certain they will sell out fast!

John Wesley's Doctrine of Entire Sanctification: Entire Subjective Nonsense

This picture summarizes my feelings toward the whole "Christian perfection" thing. I do, however, have a few friends who would say they believe in John Wesley’s doctrine of “entire sanctification.” Good for them! I even know two or three people who would go far enough to claim that they are “entirely sanctified.” First of all, let’s try to define the little phrase “I’m entirely sanctified.” It means that a person believes they have been cleansed from ‘original sin’ and now their heart is pure before God. At this point it gets a little tricky; once they are sanctified it’s not that they can’t sin, it’s just they don’t; they are perfected in love. But, if they do, it’s not really sin; it’s an “infirmity” because it wasn’t cognitive sin. So a person can be perfect, just not perfect. You understand don’t you? Hum… it would seem the devil’s in the definitions. Well, perhaps we should say “perfection is in the definition.”

Entire sanctification, or Christian perfection as it’s also called, originated with John Wesley (and no, not a day sooner I might add; I spent an entire semester in a class that surveyed the doctrine of perfection through ecclesiastical history. You can’t find it before Wesley; I’ve read the primary source documents, it’s not there.) For Wesley sanctification is a second “work of grace” (I guess it’s not enough just to be a Christian, we’ve got to create different levels of Christian...) where a person is empowered by the Holy Spirit to act perfectly in love, at all times; or in his words it is “purity of intention… enabling us to walk as Christ walked.” Additionally he says we can “love God with our whole hearts and our neighbors as ourselves.” (Plain Account of Christian Perfection, 109). Sounds good right? Well he takes the doctrine further; he said the believer is freed from sin at entire sanctification insomuch that his inward bent toward pride and self-will is removed.

Ok, can I just be honest? I read over fifty of John Wesley’s sermons and numerous of his other writings for a Theology of John Wesley class; I just didn’t get it. Why should I care about a doctrine that takes subjectivity to new levels? Funny thing is I went to a seminary where most, if not all, the faculty were committed to the holiness doctrine. Obviously they didn't convince me... So enough of that, here’s my problem with the doctrine.

First, it requires us to define sin too narrowly. For John Wesley, his followers, and adherents of the holiness movement, sin is a “willful violation of a known law of God.” Let’s break this down. Willful = subjective. Violation = sin. Known Law = yet even more subjectivity. So in other words It’s not a sin unless I know I, subjectively, realize I am sinning. As silly as it may be I’m honestly telling you some people don’t believe sin is sin unless they acknowledge the act, or thought, as such. So are we to say that when many 19th century southern Christians beat the hell out of their black slaves, raped the women and killed their children (because they were “extra” mouths to feed) they were in fact not sinful? If the slave owners honestly believed, as many of them did, that their actions were completely acceptable, are we to say they are without sin? Yes, if you define sin as a relative, subjective, standard. So then, we must say the Nazi’s who heard Hitler’s speeches and honestly believed the wide spread “racial purity” propaganda were not really sinners because many didn't know better. I beg to differ, there are times I sinned and didn’t even know it. For the entire sanctification crowd the definition of sin demands that we understand entire sanctification as relative to our personal subjective knowledge. This, my friends, is just a wrong definition! Sin is bigger than my personal definition and personal convictions.

Second is the issue of self-awareness. If one claims they are perfected in love and therefore all their actions are motivated out of love they are obviously claiming an omnipotent self-awareness. Am I to honestly believe that a person is in touch, 100%, with their sub-conscious mind? You mean some people actually claim to be so in touch with themselves that they KNOW their motives are other oriented 100% of the time? I’m sorry but I’ve got to fall off the wagon there. Simply ridiculous!

Third, to claim Christian perfection seems so arrogant. Think about it, it really does! Seems to me the one who is closest to God isn’t going to brag about it by saying “I’m perfect.” This attitude really creates a “us and them.” Remember that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer was going to create “levels” in his apartment? Well that what is happening here; there are those who are only saved, then those who know how to really surrender; they are the “sanctified.” Gimme’ a break. Because of my Pentecostal background one “acquaintance” once held my “sanctification” in question because “Pentecostals don’t have the doctrine right.” Yeah, perhaps I’m not at the next level. That’s probably why I don’t get it… I guess it’s Gnostic in nature; secret knowledge for those who are truly enlightened. Funny thing is probably less than 1% of Christians claim “perfection.” Truly it must be a secret knowledge if everyone else has missed it! Hummm…..

My next problem is ego-centrism. John Wesley said that “perfection in love is the goal of the Christian life.” This, my beloved blog readers, is another example of a subjective reading of the text and an ego-centric understanding of the Gospel. What about being the redeemed and redeeming community of God? Oh no, that’s way to simple and therefore can’t be the goal of Christianity. Why should we worry with reaching out to others when we can spend our time pondering our sanctification? The goal of the Christian life, according to Wesley, is totally subjective and individualized. It’s all about me me me! That’s why I think the whole doctrine of entire sanctification is entire nonsense. In my honest opinion it’s useless for everyday life. I’ve yet to find one person who can tell me how you’re perfect but you can still sin but it’s not really sin once you’ve been perfected because it’s in fact an infirmity. Yuck!

So, simply put the doctrine of Christian perfection is an overreaction on Wesley’s part to Calvinism. It’s a non-definable doctrine and requires a unique, and I would argue borderline heretical (at best a non-historical), definition of sin. The foundation of the doctrine is ego-centric and thus it’s not even on my paradigm’s radar screen. Honestly, much of the confusion caused by the doctrine of entire sanctification could be fixed if the adherents correctly read Romans. But that’s another blog post!

Pax Vobiscum, WRA+

Bishop N.T. Wright on Heaven

This short interview is awesome. Wright exposes the "Left Behind" heresy and argues for a historical eschatology held by the undivided catholic church. He is not in favor of the light and fancy free escapism espoused by so many western evangelicals. Their honest view is “to hell with the earth, we’re getting out of here on the rapture train so why should we even care about it.” I think Wright has a corrective word to those who treat the earth, and its inhabitants, as if it doesn’t really matter. Working for the kingdom of God in the present, fighting poverty, AIDS and hunger should be byproducts of our eschatology, not excluded from it due to dispensational premillenniumism.

Scripture, Tradition, and Reason

Father Matthew Moretz is an ECUSA priest from the northeast. This is a great video that helps us put the authority of Scripture into proper perspective. WARNING: If you’re sola scriptura protestant this probably won’t make much sense…

Saint Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist

Saint Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch in the early second century. He was condemned to die in Rome during the persecutions and was fed to the lions of Rome’s coliseum (AD 107) and afterward his body was transported back to Antioch. Ignatius is one of the closest links we have with the apostolic church; the question is why does he hold such a high view of the Eucharist if the Apostles didn’t? He did, after all, claim to receive what he taught from the apostle John, did he purposefully lie? I think not.

While on his journey to Rome he wrote seven letters to seven churches. After reading these letters one thing is noticeable, his high view of the Eucharist. The Sacrament is the beating heart of his teachings. He echoes the sacrificial language employed in the Didache when he speaks of the church as “the place of sacrifice” where the episcopos (bishop) presides over the Eucharist. For Ignatius the church received its unity in Christ during table worship (e.g. the Eucharist). A sacramental ontology of the church, if you wish.

Ignatius marked those who deny the real presence as abject heretics “because they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer; because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” (Smyrnaeans, 7). This is where it gets real interesting for those who deny the real presence; Ignatius said they should not even be served the Eucharist as doing so would precipitate spiritual death. In him we also find an undertone of the necessity of apostolic succession; “let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is administered either by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it.” (Ibid., 8). So in sum, Mass, for Ignatius, is not valid unless it is offered and accepted as the real presence of Christ by a bishop (or a priest entrusted by the bishop) in succession (Ibid). The underlying idea is that all apostolic teaching is not contained in the Scripture and therefore we must employ tradition to aid in our understanding. Just to clarify before I’m called a heretic, I do believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain everything necessary for life and salvation in Christ. They do not, however, tell us everything; this is why we employ tradition. As Ignatius traveled to Rome his concern was for a Eucharistic theology; may his bleeding heart's passion consume us likewise.

Officially An Army Chaplain

It is official, I'm a chaplain in the US Army. Friday, August 1st 2008, the last night of our international convocation, Fr. Jonathan Landon (CH, MAJ, US ARMY) administered my oath of office. The article that appeared on CEC Home is following:

At Friday evenings Mass, Archbishop Doug Woodall introduced Fr. Rian Adams as the newest Charismatic Episcopal Church priest to be selected for active duty in the United States Army. Army Chaplain Major (Fr) Jonathan Landon, another CEC priest serving on active duty, swore Fr. Adams in as a First Lieutenant in the Army Chaplain Corps in front of over a thousand worshipers at the concluding convocation service. Fr. Adams is a recent Master of Divinity graduate of Wesley Biblical Seminary in Jackson, MS. He and his wife Amber are from Altha, FL..

Fr. Adams was ordained to the Diaconate and Priesthood recently by Bishop David Epps on behalf of Archbishop Woodall at Christ the King CEC in Sharpsburg, GA.

Fr. Adams will report for active duty in mid September at the Army Chaplain’s School at Ft. Jackson, SC.

Fort Hood!

It looks like I'm getting my wish, I will be an active duty army chaplain at Ft. Hood TX. I was surprised they gave me my request; this could be the only time in my career I get the specific post I wanted, better enjoy it while I can!

Ordination: The Sacrament of Holy Orders

Sunday was so emotional! I'll admit, I cried like a baby (and I'm usually not one given to crying). I fasted, prayed and I thought I was mentally prepared... I wasn't. Graduating from seminary was a big deal, but, for me at least, not as important as Holy Orders. I was so taken by surprise at the sweetness and reality of the Holy Spirit's presence that I could do nothing but weep. Humbling, to say the least! It always amazes me how the sense of the holy grasps me in liturgical worship and Sunday was no different; the Holy Spirit was there! Because I am soon to be an active duty army chaplain Bishop Epps asked one of our chaplains, Fr. Jonathan Landon, Chaplain (MAJ), Active Duty Army, to deliver the homily. Celebrating mass afterward was... well, too sweet to even describe much less comprehend. Below are some pictures.

Beginning of the service, I wear nothing but an Alb and cincture and kneel before the Bishop.


Fr. Landon, Active Duty Army Chaplain, preaches my ordination homily.

Lying under the funeral paul

Bishop Epps bestowing the stole, the yoke of Christ

The Cross

Fr. Landon placing the chasuble

Preparing to serve, the deacon washes my hands

Eucharistic Liturgy

Consecrating the Bread

Consecrating the Wine - My First Eucharist as a priest; I'm looking forward to many more as a priest and Army chaplain.

Dominus Vobiscum