This paper has been written by me in the course of my theological studies at European Nazarene College (www.eunc.edu). You may use this text as a part of your work provided that you give credits to its author – Petar Neychev. If you have questions – please, leave a comment or contact me through the Contact Us page.

Probably one of the most controversial and often discussed aspects of the doctrine of God is this of evil. Whether as a result of a deep theological discussion or a simple everyday experience-based conversation, the presence of evil in the created order is strongly agreed upon. Thus, the issue at stake becomes “How do we deal with it?” It should not be surprising that there are various paths leading towards understanding the question and alluding to the answer. In the following lines the major of these will be briefly presented, accompanied with their strongest arguments. As a separate section the Wesleyan approach will be outlined in greater detail, in order to offer a perception which is more balanced. Following this the author will present a concluding section on applying the Wesleyan approach in everyday life and ministry in today’s world. This is how the author will present and defend the stand that the problem of evil, although unresolvable is yet surmountable, and it is not in contradiction with the remaining characteristics of God which are clearly stated in the Bible.

Various Perspectives on evil

As it was mentioned in the introductory words, there are various ways of perceiving one of the greatest paradoxes of theology – the good God and the obvious presence of evil in his creation. I would like to begin by presenting a view according to which evil is but a mere illusion – it is not real. J.R. Zurheide in When Faith Is Tested points out that Christian scientists attempt to resolve the problem through a series of logical syllogisms. Thus, starting out with “God is All” they reach a conclusion claiming that “Sin and Sickness are not real.” It underlines a quite unreasonable leap, which is additionally argued down by the integrity of the doctrine of God as Creator of all. Zurheide very well formulates the consequences of this view and the logical conclusion of the syllogism mentioned above:

“Be that as it may, by arriving at the conclusion that matter does not exist, Christian Scientists also claim that pain, sickness, suffering, and death are both illusory and the result of false beliefs. Try sharing the unreality of pain with one who has just unintentionally hit the thumb with the hammer…”

Thus we can quickly arrive at the opinion that “the concept of illusion does not help to resolve the problem of evil since it raises too many questions about itself.”

Another attempt is the one which Zurheide calls “Eliminating “God is Great”. Starting with the simple name of it, and without any dry theological argumentations this statement would sound ridiculous to the believer. The ones in favor of process theology, however, together with Rabbi Harold Kushner will argue pro-. This view tries to resolve the paradox by removing of the causes for it – the claim that God is omnipotent. Kushner, for instance, argues based on the book of Job that:

“If we have grown up, as Job and his friends did, believing in an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-knowing God, it will be hard for us, as it was hard for them, to change our way of thinking about Him… But if we can bring ourselves to acknowledge that there are some things God does not control, many good things become possible.”

Several of the critiques of this standpoint include the suggested dualism (Zurheide 30), and the inconsistent and unclear use of terms such as “bad” and “good” by the author of the quotation himself. Process theology is also not accepted as a correct perception, which is well expressed by Wright in the following words:

“It is difficult to see how these themes in process thought can be squared with biblical faith. On a more ironic level, we might feel we have enough prolems of our own without having to help God continue his development with his as well.”

I would like to combine the following two approaches in one discussion, since there is a strong similarity between them. The perception of evil as good and the one of evil as necessary have in common the specific dignity they assign to it. The first way, supported by Leibnitz and Sanford, suggests that evil is actually helping the developing world (notice the connection also with process theology here) by enhancing the good there is. A vivid example here could be the saying “What doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger.” Evil is also given the role of helper for individuals to understand God better.

On the other hand, the issue of evil as necessary could also be referred to as the “free will defence” (Wright 84). To describe it briefly, this is a view in which the argument is that God could not create a free-will-driven being without the presence of evil. Otherwise man would automatically do the proper thing, and thus freedom is lost. The bottom line of this argument is the following:

“The free will defence… maintains that God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good but that it was not within God’s power to create a world containing moral good without creating one containing the possibility of moral evil.”

To briefly summarize the effects of these two views one can state the following: When we see evil as good we proclaim that there is peace (as opposed to the constant battle) between God and evil. The psychologist Carl Jung goes as far as saying that we need not speak of a trinity, but of a quaternity – where he secures a place for Satan within the Godhead. Concerning the view of evil as necessary one may argue that since creation and all within it come from God then the logical way of thinking is also under his power. This is to say that the last quotation from Wright can be denied by saying that God could have created a world in which the impossible now could be possible, but his love and the desire he had for man did not prevent him – God limited himself because of his love.

A Wesleyan Approach

Compared to the ones mentioned above, the Wesleyan approach to the problem of evil stands out with its balance and biblical support, and at the same time recognition of the reality which mankind experiences in the world. From the following lines it will also become clear to the reader that the Wesleyan approach does not seek to clearly define the origin of evil from its very beginning, but to guide the believer in dealing successfully with the present (and very practical!) characteristics of it.

Remaining true to the biblical foundation this approach claims that “God was the sole Source of all existence” – ex-nihilo (Dunning 241). From that statement one can also conclude that “since all that is derives from God’s will which because of his holiness can only be good, nothing in existence can be intrinsically evil” (Dunning 241, italics mine). This eliminates the contradiction with the remaining aspects of the doctrine of God which are present with the views presented earlier.

The Wesleyan approach perceives evil in two categories – moral evil, which is in its essence sin, and natural evil, which is referred to also as physical evil. The moral evil, or sin is viewed as “man’s rebellious will, his refusal to acknowledge the Lordship of his Creator” (Dunning 252). Thus it becomes relatively easy to comprehend the moral evil, since it is grounded in the individual. The issue of natural evil, however is one of various unknowns. And here is where the Wesleyan approach stands out by not emphasizing on the origin of this evil, but on dealing with it and its end. The biblical emphasis is clearly communicated through the passage from Revelation 21:1, which reads: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had vanished” (NEB). The cross of Christ is perceived as “God’s final word to the issue of suffering” (Dunning 254). This is the way in which mankind triumphs over evil, instead of being lost in the unsuccessful attempts to discover the origin of it. This is how the Wesleyan approach opens the door for mankind to seek God’s love in a world contaminated with evil.

Conclusion

After having a general overview of the approaches to the problem of evil one may still remain with a certain discomfort concerning the practical application of all said so far. It should be made clear that the final answer from a Wesleyan view is in response to the question “How do we overcome it?” but not “How do we resolve the paradox?” By distinguishing between the two kinds of evil, this approach allows the individual to seek victory over evil though the cross of Christ (through redemption, faith, and hope), and mankind as a whole – by being dependent on God’s love and the personal relationship with him, the results of which apostle Paul formulates very well:

“ For I am certain that nothing can separate us from his love: neither death nor life, neither angels nor other heavenly rulers or powers, neither the present nor the future, neither the world above nor the world below – there is nothing in all creation that will ever be able to separate us from the love of God which is ours through Christ Jesus our Lord ”(Romans 8:38-39, GNB).

Bibliography

Dunning, H. Ray, Grace, Faith and Holiness. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1988

Plantinga, Alvin, God, freedom, and evil. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 1977

Wright, Nigel G., A theology of the dark side : putting the power of evil in its place. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003

Zurheide, Jeffry R., When faith is tested : pastoral responses to suffering and tragic death. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997

This paper has been written by me in the course of my theological studies at European Nazarene College (www.eunc.edu). You may use this text as a part of your work provided that you give credits to its author – Petar Neychev. If you have questions – please, leave a comment or contact me through the Contact Us page.

Being careful enough not to underestimate the remaining aspects of the doctrine of God one could confidently say that the doctrine of God as a Creator is of  immeasurable importance – a firm foundation for the Christian (and also Jewish) faith. Due to the fact that this doctrine is what the Scripture addresses at its very beginning, and the role it plays as a foundation for the following doctrines on the person of God, a discussion on the topic will always involve certain references to issues such as: the problem of evil, the purpose of creation, Christianity (or faith) and science.

The brief overview of this doctrine from a Wesleyan perspective, which the current work aims to present to the reader, will undoubtedly touch these topics, but will not engage with them in details due to their complicity and vast majority of differing views. In the following lines you will be introduced to the doctrine of God as Creator. Although throughout the paper one may mainly read theological presuppositions and/or claims, the conclusion at the end will attempt to place the discussion in the practical context of life today.
Creatio en nihilo and the problem of evil

The latin term is used in theological language to express the idea of “creation out of nothing.” To dive into the depths of this statement directly I would mention several of the implications from it: God is the ultimate source of all things, since God is the Source of all things, there is nothing else than Him alone that is worthy of creation’s praise; all creation is dependent on God. The last major implication – that God creates with freedom and purpose will be discussed in more detail in the following section.

The first implication – that God is the source of all things has played a major role as a weapon against dualism – both in history and today. It is used as the main opposition to heresies claiming that all material is bad and only the soul is good. Next to that stands the recognition that God alone is worthy of our praise. This is closely tied with the dependence of humanity on God. By this various forms of superstitious faith are disclaimed. At the same time, the dependency on God and the creation out of nothing lead to some deviations such as believing that creation is out of God, but not out of nothing. If it would be so, theology would run into a problem, which Dunning describes as “an interpretation of creation as emanation, where God’s nature is projected into reality like the rays of the sun emanate from the source, as in Neoplatonism. In that imagery the distinction between infinite and finite reality are obscured.” (Dunning, 224) Thus, accepting that creation is out of nothing through the dependence on God one avoids the problem and emphasizes the importance of God’s continuous nurturing presence and power, which is what sustains creation in its existence.

Suggesting that everything is out of nothing through God immediately leads to the question of evil, and the logical conclusion that it must also be through God. If we were to choose dualism, the problem of evil would not be present, since in that case it is attributed to another person. However, according both the Old and the New Testament this is not the case. A careful interpretation of Scripture would show that the Old Testament writers attributed both good and evil to God. We find the same trend in the New Testament, which strengthens the connection and continuity between the two. Thus, moral evil in the Wesleyan tradition is defined as the “misuse of human freedom” (Lodahl 55) or in other words: “a perversion of the good the God created” (Dunning 242). The quest for resolving the problem of natural evil – the evil which is not a direct result of the actions or the lack thereof of humans, still continues in the sense that there is not such a clear-cut and simplified explanation.

The goodness and the purpose of creation

The creation account in the book of Genesis introduces an interesting repetition of the phrase “it was very good.” This suggests that creation indeed was very good in the eyes of its Father – the Creator. As Lodahl states it, this means that “creation is capable of fulfilling God’s purposes” (Lodahl 63). This is how close the connection between creation’s goodness and its purpose is! In addition Dunning suggests that a creation with a purpose implies a personal Creator. Knowing the purpose of a person, however, requires that we have a revelation from the person themselves – in this case, God’s personal revelation through His Word and Jesus Christ.

The term providence is often used to describe the purposeness of God, but as well to lay emphasis on the claim that He also “guides to the achievement of that purpose” (Dunning 256). If we would agree on the purpose of God and continue with discussing the ways in which he helps creation and more specifically – humanity to achieve it we will still end up before two general categories of providence – general and special. The general providence has to do with God sustaining creation in a way that it depends on Him for each and every moment, while special providence concerns the human affairs.

There are two important practical implications which should not be omitted: what is “good” according to God, and how he guides us towards that. The answer of both can be derived from the careful analysis of the passage in Romans 8:28-29. It makes clear that “good” is for humans to be conformed to the image of God’s Son, but not any form of self-centered gain or pleasure, which often happens to be the result of a misinterpretation. The passage goes deeper to show that not each and every single experience in the believer’s life comes directly from God. However, God is always able to lead each event to result in the “good” which was previously briefly defined.

In the context of the doctrine of providence one may also raise the question of free will, and how much of that is present having said everything above. Although this is a very delicate topic, for which we seem to lack ability to fully comprehend rationally, there is still some guidance. The main Wesleyan theological suggestion to this issue is that “God does not determine one’s choices, but He influences them” (Dunning 258). This “influence” however, always leaves room for the person to act differently if they willfully decide not to conform to the will of God. How this is possible in the context of a mighty God Creator could be explained only through God’s love for His creation. This love explains the self-limitation of God.

The Genesis Account

The biblical account of the creation offers a rich field for work for both theologians and scientists. Although most biblical scholars today would agree that the biblical account of creation cannot be used as a scientific proof (or disproof), a number of people, including Christians tend to claim it as such. From a theological viewpoint it is clear that this is not the intention of the writer. In addition, when speaking about God’s transcendence and freedom in the story of creation we cannot claim that this text can be called a scientific account, because speaking or writing about such would involve a previous experience of the same. Yet, we have not had the experience of a divine Creator calling a world into being out of nothing. This is also the reason why we can only use analogies as we touch the issue. Thus, a scientific discussion based on the biblical text would be invalid. This, however should not be confused with the attempts of human reason to grasp at least until some degree the mystery of the created order, as far as it does not try to answer the question “How?”, which would be impossible having explained the relationship between the Creator and creation.

From a theological perspective the account in Genesis gives us a very good description of God’s nature. One of the aspects which are not as obvious, but yet, well covered is the issue of the Godhead.  Dunning summarizes it very well, also providing biblical support for the claim:

“The biblical witness testifies that the Father, Son, and Spirit were all involved in the creation act/process (Col. 1:16-17; John 1:3; Gen. 1:2; 1 Cor. 8:6; Ps. 104:30). Thus when we speak of God the Creator, we speak of the total Godhead” 

Thus, the creation account, seen from a Wesleyan perspective does not explain scientifically the “how” of the act/process, but at the same time leaves an open door for the search of reason towards finding out more about it, in spite of the fact that a full comprehension of it is not within our capabilities.

Conclusion

The inevitable practical application of the proper interpretation of the doctrine of God as Creator involves a major change in the person’s life. It does not provide and easy way out of the problem of evil, but certainly brings comfort through the stress on purposeness and constant, unceasing sustenance by God. It once again makes us ponder about God’s greatness and might in the fact that He who is able to create out of nothing is willing to be so personal with us. Finally, other than preventing us from misinterpretation, this doctrine provides solid ground for understanding the remaining of God’s Word as it is intended – strongly resisting the scientific drives of today’s thinking.

Bibliography

Dunning, H. Ray, Grace, Faith and Holiness. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1988

Lodahl, M., The Story of God: Wesleyan Theology and Biblical Narrative. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1994.

Runyon, T., The new creation : John Wesley’s theology today. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998

This paper has been written by me in the course of my theological studies at European Nazarene College (www.eunc.edu). You may use this text as a part of your work provided that you give credits to its author – Petar Neychev. If you have questions – please, leave a comment or contact me through the Contact Us page.

Probably one of the most discussed topics about the nature of the God of the Christian religion (further referred to as God) is this of his personality. Where does the question “Is God personal?” lead us? On the surface it might even seem easy to defend the doctrine of a personal God using his incarnation in the body of Jesus Christ. This however, leads to the complication of explaining how God the Father and God the Holy Spirit fit under the characteristic “personal”, since the idea of God also incorporates the trinity. If one agrees to accept God as personal, how would they deal with the implications from that? On the other hand, if we say God is not personal, then how do we explain the clear explanation of the Bible about God’s active and results-producing relationship with creation?

Due to the vast variety of questions concerning God’s personality, in the current work I would like to guide the reader through a selected path of understanding the implications of it. Placed in the context of new-born Christians this aspect of God’s nature will inevitably lead to a crucial impact on the understanding of the trinity, redemption and salvation of humanity, and the all-encompassing development of the redeemed through their life.

Thus, I would like to set the foundation of this paper as follows: God is personal, and there is no need of further defense of that statement, although due to the interrelatedness of this presupposition with the inferences from it one may be presented partially. Second, the personal aspect of God’s nature plays a major role in the act of salvation of humanity. In addition, the spiritual growth and the maintenance of the relationship God-humanity and the understanding and implications of the trinity have to do with God being a personal God. These three I would like to discuss in the following pages.

The Personal God and the Salvation of Humanity

A brief introduction to God’s love and the expression of it in creation is necessary before we continue with salvation and how God relates to people through it. One of the most encompassing aspects of God’s personality is his love. This aspect of itself can also be used for defending the claim that God is personal, because it suggests a certain type or relationship which cannot be accomplished in the interaction between mere substances. Thus, love inevitably comes out (results from) of the nature of the relationship God has with us. One may argue that this is a self-defending claim, but the fact that God initiated this relationship and he restores is must not be neglected, and from that follows that God is the beginning of the circle. Although at times it is underestimated as a significant point, God’s love is the connection between God himself and the salvation of humanity. By carefully examining the account of creation and the overall view of Scripture on it, it becomes clear that God did not need to create an object (creation) in order to be able to practice his love. He could do that within his own person – the trinity. Thus, it can be concluded that God has created out of his willingness to create, but not out of a necessity.

The freeing love of God which is found in humanity, meaning the free will of man given to him by God, has been misused and as a consequence of that the Fall of man occurred. After the Fall God’s love finds an expression in the deliverance of man. In thinking about this, today we tend to connect the terms “God” and “person” through Jesus Christ. This is a sound thinking, but in and of itself it does not embrace the fullness of God’s personal approach to the issue. Looking at the deliverance in the Old Testament story of Israel we see God revealed as a person, but this person is not bound (although it may at times be alluded to with expressions such as: God’s voice, for instance) to the in-flesh understanding which we associate with Jesus. The book of Exodus in its description of Yahwe’s interaction with Moses is painfully clear that God is present personally and through that he brings about the deliverance of the nation of Israel from Egypt. From this we see that because of his being personal in relationship with us in time God cannot be distant from us, although he is not dependent on creation. The result of all this is that God is present with us because he is a personal God.

Another result of the personality of God and his relationship with humanity is the incarnation of Jesus Christ, which was already mentioned. The significance of the incarnation is very much grounded in the fact that through the in-fleshing of God the humanity was and is able to comprehend him on a higher level. Besides the fact that Jesus came in a human body to become the all-satisfying blood sacrifice, simply by his coming he shows the power of God – that there is no limit as to how he is able to come present among us.

A personal relationship with a personal God in the life of Christians

Although the applications of God’s “personhood” concerning man’s redemption and salvation are many more than what was said, and in fact beyond the scope of this paper, they are not the only area in which humanity meets God personally. God’s work in a human being is not restrained to salvation alone, but it continues in the cognitive, experiential, and physical development of that man or woman for the remaining of their lives. And in this area the personal incarnation of God in Jesus Christ impacts us on everyday basis. In his exemplary life Jesus stresses multiple times on the aspects of life, which distinguish us as persons.

It is the words of Jesus“love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (John 13:34, GNB) that verbalize the idea of the interaction of a holy God with the fallen people, which are to seek back conformity to the image of a personal God in which they have been created. In Jesus we see the original image towards the restoration of which Christians are to progress. And this message of Christ does not stay in any opposition to the overall stress of the commandments which God gave to the people of Israel, for they also concern their communal life – the relationships among them and of them with their God. And I believe it is also worth mentioning that even as we talk about the nation of Israel and God’s story with them, we refer to the latter as their God, which suggests belonging and interaction, and these continually. So it is not only Jesus in the New Testament or the God of the Old that was personal to us and made a difference through that – today we still cry out “Our Father!”

In his book called God in the Present Tense D.S. Corlett states it very simple and yet powerful: “we can love an experience, but an experience cannot love us” (Corlett, 43). If there is any ambiguity as to what he means, it should vanish as we clarify that he is talking about entire sanctification – one of the major focuses of Christian life in the Wesleyan tradition. This is to say that nothing is possible with God if we consider him anything less than a person. Entire sanctification is to be a relationship in which we love God and due to his love for us, as we are in his presence we become closer and closer to him. This is in brief how Corlett puts in words the meaning of the personal God with whom we are in a personal relationship. And the practical applications and results of all that become evident in our relationships with the people in our world.

The trinity and God as a person

One of the most difficult aspects of God’s personality to comprehend for humans is the one which the doctrine of the trinity attempts to describe. It is also accepted that the Old and New Testament do not provide for us a clear doctrine, although one is needed to explain the mutual existence in compatibility as found in the Scripture of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus, the trinity is meant to describe how the person of God is in fact not as a human person, but in complicity reaches far beyond. To use a vague language – the trinity is the explanation of how three persons can be one.

As it was mentioned earlier, the relationship of love within the trinity – the way Jesus refers to the Father, and the Father to the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the midst of that, this relationship is a reason why we could say that God did not need to have an object to love because he can exercise his love within himself. It would be beneficial to add that the relationship within the trinity itself is a result of God being a personal God. Multiple times Jesus speaks of the Father suggesting a mutual knowledge, similar to which he wants us to have with him. Although there might be many questions about how things are within the being of God, this aspect of him will inevitably have impact on how we take God as an example for relationships.

Conclusion

As a conclusion of the brief review which was made on God’s personality and it’s meaning to Christians, I would like to mention a few main ideas. First, probably the most vivid result of God being a person is his presence in his creation, which is expressed through the relationship he has initiated and established. Second, the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ speaks about his desire to re-establish the broken connection between creation and Creator, and continue to nourish it. Third, only through the relationship between us and God as persons will we grow towards the image humanity has been created in initially. And finally, although we may never comprehend the mystery of the trinity, today we should seek the importance it places on a relationship between persons.

Bibliography

Carson, D.A., The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996

Corlett, David S., God in the present tense: the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1974

Dunning, H. Ray, Grace, Faith and Holiness. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1988

Pinnok, Clark H., Most moved mover: a theology of God’s openness. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001

Strauss, Lehman, The first person: devotional studies on God the Father. Neptune, N. J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1967