Correspondents from across the U.S. and Canada replied to the excerpt of Charles's letter* that appeared in this column last issue. Charles's excerpted paragraph argued that one unjust act, the torture and killing of Jesus on the cross, can neither compensate for nor justify the wrongful suffering of all humanity. In Charles's words, "Two injustices don't cancel one another out but only create a greater injustice."
In the many, from a half-page to five pages, two common themes emerged. First, all agreed that Christ's death on the cross, while undeserved and an expression of human injustice, does not represent God's injustice. Rather, it reflects the fulfillment of God's justice—the complete payment of sin's penalty—not forced on Jesus but willingly endured by Him to spare those who desire, but could otherwise never attain, eternal life with the One who made them. If there were no penalty, life's choices would be a farce. If that penalty were inescapable, life itself would be a farce.
Second, all agreed that Jesus' suffering on the cross does not constitute divine compensation for humanity's sufferings. I'm drawn to Len's statement of the case because he draws upon a great work of literature, Dostoevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamozov.
"Ivan [one of the Karamozov brothers] recites a horrendous list of atrocities against children, reported by the Russian newspapers of his day, to explain to his Christian brother, Alyosha, why he intends to drown his soul in debauchery and then take his own life when he turns thirty. Unredeemed suffering is unbearable, and Ivan could not and would not embrace the power of Love that can transform dirt into divinity. Ivan, and apparently Charlie, cannot accept the notion that Christ's suffering atones for the suffering of innocent children, and he and Charlie are right. Jesus' suffering and death did not atone for suffering; it atoned for sin from whence comes suffering. . . ."
Some suffering comes from our own sin, and some comes from others', but suffering must be a necessary part of a larger picture and plan. It has a purpose now, Dennis writes, one that God can and will morally justify, and it will be compensated for later, Diane and Len remind us, in the unimaginable splendor of the new creation—something infinitely better than Eden.
*Charles wrote me at Christmastime in 1994 explaining his reason for rejecting Christianity. In a nine-paragraph letter, he states his case for concluding that the biblical God is "morally repulsive." He implies that any open-minded, thinking person would conclude the same. Because his argument succinctly expresses frequently-encountered challenges to our faith, I began to present his paragraphs, one at a time, to stimulate thinking and preparedness. Just as importantly, I sought to enlist prayer support and correspondents for Charles, in case his heart may still be open, even the tiniest bit. Whatever his response, I'm convinced we have much to gain and nothing to lose by attending to his concerns.
This page, and all contents, are Copyright © 1996 by Reasons To Believe.
Return to the
Reasons To Believe Home Page
Return to the table of contents for the Facts & Faith, Second Quarter 1996 Issue