Julie Clawson

Wright sees the quest to find the solution to the problem of evil not as the search to answer why it exists at all, but as “a search for ways in which the healing, restorative justice of the Creator God himself – a justice which will one day suffuse the whole creation- can be brought to bear, in advance of that ultimate reality, within the present world of space, time, matter and messy realities in human lives and societies.” This job of changing reality is a way mopping up the spilled milk instead of just crying over it. As I mentioned before, I don’t share his dismissal of the emotional implications of evil, but I do find much of value in his “mop up” strategy.

In our anticipation of a world without evil, Wright suggests that the task of Christians is not “waiting passively for that future to arrive,” but instead involves “anticipating such a future world in prayer, holiness and justice in the present.” This “already but not yet” approach doesn’t deny creation or evil. Yes – evil does exist in the here and now and we can do something about it in the here and now. Wright suggest five ways that we can start to imagine a new world.

First is to let our lives be transformed through prayer. This involves asking God to intercede and transform the world not just enjoy spiritual comforts for ourselves. The next suggestion is for Christians to live holy lives that don’t clamor to return to slavery to sin/evil but instead celebrate Christ’s victory over evil.

Wright then turns to politics and calls believers to hold authorities accountable to their God-given tasks of doing justice, loving mercy, and ensuring that the weak and the vulnerable are properly looked after. If we truly believe that all power and authority is God-given then we must insist that the authorities live up to the mandate to do good and no evil. Who or how someone comes to power does not matter as much as what they do with that power (so we need to get over the idea that the mere fact of getting elected is a carte blanche to do whatever a leader wants. Elections mean nothing is the leader is promoting evil).

Wright’s fourth suggestion involves promoting restorative justice. In such systems “the whole community is committed to naming evil for what it is and to addressing and dealing with it, not by shutting people away from the embarrassed eyes all around, but by bringing together offender and victim, with their families and friends, to look hard at what has happened and agree on a way forward.”

Finally Wright suggests we need to approach international evil “not by ignoring it on the one hand or by blasting away at it with heavy artillery on the other.” International structures that engage those communities that neither deny evil or believe that might makes right are more and more necessary if the message of the cross is to prevail.

Obviously Wright has engaged the issue of evil from a faith perspective that cares for those created in God’s image. His solutions are meant for those who want to see God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. It doesn’t matter (in this sense) that it is often those who claim to follow Christ that perpetrate the most evil. The point is to do the hard work to change that. It is easier to deny that evil exists or to lash out in anger. Bombing a country or spanking a child is easy if you are the bigger more powerful entity. Working to reform and forgive is a lot harder. I appreciate that Wright insists hat this isn’t a magic formula that will eliminate all evil, but a means of imagining the way things can be and of claiming how it will someday be.

In N.T. Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God one finds a lot about about how God deals with evil and not so much about what most people define as the problem of evil. Basically Wright claims that we can never really answer the question as to why evil exists (or even why God allows evil) so we should focus instead on what God is doing (or will do) to deal with evil. It is not a typical approach and does little to satisfy most people’s concerns. Honestly I think that most people really would rather know why God allows evil to begin with before they are ready to accept that God is working to overcome evil. Wright says to want to understand why evil exists (to solve the problem of evil) is to belittle evil and want to use human means to overcome it (progress). He sees that as a dangerous and immature response influenced by modernism and not scripture. He then proceeds to tell us that we have to believe that evil exists and that God is working to overcome it. He writes, “what the Gospels offer is not a philosophical explanation of evil, what it is or why it’s there, nor a set of suggestions for how we might adjust our lifestyles so that evil will mysteriously disappear from the world, but the story of an event in which the living God deals with it.”

So my question is – why can’t we believe that God (not humans) is working to overcome evil and still ask why it exists? Wright’s approach has a bit too much “just deal with it and move on” to satisfy the spiritual questioning of many readers. Telling someone that their need to understand why their child died of cancer is immature and based on an inappropriate allegiance to Modern philosophy is not what is needed no matter how good your subsequent theology. I did have to laugh at points in the book at how stereotypically “male” his approach was. The old thing about men wanting to solve problems while women want to be emotionally understood and comforted. Not that solutions are bad or unneeded, they just often miss the point of the whole discussion. But maybe it’s just personality and depends on the reader and what they are looking for. I guess I was hoping for a holistic approach that doesn’t dichotomize between the theology and spirituality.

Once I got past my frustration with the basic premise of the book, I appreciated Wright’s take on how God is dealing with evil. I especially liked his insistence that since evil exists in this world, then God will work to overcome evil in this world. Since God is the creator it matters that “the existing creation be set to rights rather than scrapping it and doing something else instead.” Our hope is not in escaping it all when we die, but in God’s kingdom actually coming on earth. As to Wright’s ideas for how that happens, I’ll save that for another post.

In continuing to read N.T. Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God, I am intrigued by his rationale for why he dislikes the modern notion of progress. In his view, the concept of progress that sees the world as basically a good place with its problems eventually to be eradicated through technology, education, development, and Westernization has lead to the three major issues with the problem of evil in out day.

1. We ignore evil when it doesn’t hit us in the face. For example, we know Al-Qaeda was a threat, but didn’t take it seriously until it was too late. This of course raises the question as to how our ignoring the issues of third world debt and global warming will eventually play out.

2. We are surprised by evil when it does hit us in the face. We expect places to be safe and people to be good. We have removed death from our homes to the hospitals. So when evil, harm, and death appear it takes us by surprise and we do not have the means to understand it when it intrudes in our life.

3. As a result, when evil appears we react in immature and dangerous ways. We either

a. Project evil on to others and blame them for our woes. It’s always then someone else’s fault – it’s society’s fault, it’s the government’s fault, and I am an innocent victim. Society’s ills are caused by terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and criminals.

or we

b. Project evil on to ourselves and blame ourselves. The terrorists are terrorists because of what we allowed to happen in their countries, illegal immigrants are fleeing the effects of our foreign policy…

Wright acknowledges the elements of truth is both extreme views, but asserts that it should not be an either/or. Wright recommends that we take to heart the view of Alexander Solzhenitsyn that the line between good and evil is never between “us” and “them.” The line between good and evil runs through each of us.

I generally like his criticism of the current way of viewing evil. I see how I have leaned to far into both of the “immature” responses at various points in my life. But I find myself wondering if being surprised by evil is really such a bad thing.

I understand the need not to be naive or innocent in regard to evil. I fully admit that evil exists and that it is a seriously problem. But I think that becoming callous to evil is just as dangerous as not expecting evil to happen to you and then being surprised. So perhaps surprised isn’t the word I am looking for. Offended might be a better choice. Offended that evil occurs and hurts people. In taking offense at evil, one still cares but is not so overwhelmed by evil that one is too paralyzed to respond. Accepting that evil exists should never cause us to forget that this is not the way the world is meant to be.