And, though most people say Bonhoeffer’s actions are just, this example does not live up to Jesus’ example. Jesus would not have participated in assassination plots even to end genocide. His approach was to create a world where genocide doesn’t happen.

I think situations like Bonhoeffer’s are extremely rare, which would mean there is more unjust violence argued as just than just violence – and we have to at least be aware that Jesus just does not support either. Whatever we’re attempting to accomplish in Iraq is a piss poor reason, no matter how you look at it, to suspend Jesus’ nonviolent message.

So on ethics, I would contend that God is using the beloved community to create a world where there is no violence…or even competition for that matter. I don’t thing killing accomplishes this. Bonhoeffer’s example is good to think about but it causes people to abuse the example and perpetuate a world where violence exists. There are other examples of resisting violence peacefully.

Chad, I agree and really liked the corinthian deal. I was most moved by Bob on this front. I wonder about the ethical question, I guess. It was affirmed that “God is at least as ethical as we would expect each other to be and God would prevent suffering if possible.” But people disagree on what is and is not ethical, depending on circumstances! That’s my question. Are any and all means justified toward the end of “preventing suffering”? If not, then why are any means justified for God to use? If so, then have we replaced the God of Jesus for opportunism?

What if I calculate out that I can prevent suffering by murdering others? The war in Iraq comes to mind as an example of people trying to ‘limit suffering’ in the future by dropping bombs in the present.

“Is there room for an eschatological hope that doesn’t deny the existence of evil, but points to a future where death is killed?”

I think so, but “death being killed” is a hard thought to think. How we define the hope changes everything.

I thought about doing a blog or two on Evil and Eschatology, so maybe your questions can pressure me.

There are categories of suffering for which there are no easy answers. True that! Suffering that leaves us no other option but to suffer with the other.

But this isn’t a good time to pull out the mystery card because we’re working on a problem about the nature of God that keeps Tripp awake at night.

Good point about Job and I would add that the only time Job’s friends were helpful was when they sat with him in silence.

When one part suffers, every member of the body suffers together. 1 Corinthians 12:26 (rough translation)

The word sympathy (which comes from the verb in this verse) means “suffer with.” Bob mentions that the worst pain someone can endure is the kind when no one is with us.

We didn’t really get too far into ethics in this discussion, only to affirm that God is at least as ethical as we would expect each other to be and God would prevent suffering if possible.

Great point about the cross. I understand that God “suffers with” because of the event of the cross. God felt the pain of death because of what Christ endured.

The resurrection is essential to all this. It’s the source of our relentless hope. But we don’t want to rush through Good Friday as we typically do to get to Easter Sunday. When I linger at what happened on the cross I find where God is when people suffer – that God hurts when creation hurts. And that’s essential too.

Glad you liked this and gave it some thought.

“we need to respond by trying to reduce suffering,” Bob says. How? What if in the name of “reducing suffering”, we add to it? What if the cure is worse than the disease? What about the Jesus parable of the wheat and the chaff? This parable seems to indicate an eschatological hope, that God is the final Judge… but that in the meantime we are to sow seeds of the Kingdom. Which leads back to my first question, what are creative “jesus-ways” to respond to suffering in our world?

AND, what if you can prevent suffering by doing something that is unacceptable (murder)? What of the Bonhoeffer dilemma… at what point do I abandon Jesus’ nonviolent example to help “rid the world” of evil/suffering? Isn’t this why a nonviolent faith in Jesus’ Kingdom, and actively participating in this Kingdom, almost necessarily breeds an eschatological hope?

Is it not okay to, like Job, refuse to offer an explanation of suffering, but saying of suffering and God, “there is so much more going on here than i can comprehend; surely i spoke of things i didn’t know of”? The point of Job is twofold, as I read it: 1, to slam people who give easy theological explanation for the “problem of pain”, especially when those people lack empathy, and 2, to say that WE can know no answer… not that there ISN’T an explanation for suffering, but that our brains can’t comprehend anything approaching and answer.

Is there room for an eschatological hope that doesn’t deny the existence of evil, but points to a future where death is killed?

“whether christ was resurrected or not resurrected” was listed as one question by the buddha that could be relegated to something that “doesn’t matter” when it comes to suffering and pain. it certainly matters. it IS the answer to suffering. The cross and the resurrection have to be the christian’s starting point for looking at suffering. so the resurrection, bodily so, i’d say, isn’t peripheral.

i like how he said that god IS at work in fixing the world, and we can partner with God in this. does process theology think god can lose this struggle? mesle said “god can’t guarantee it won’t be okay”… i wonder?

Looking at these notes I typed as I listened, it sounds like I didn’t enjoy the thing, but I really liked Mesle and the two-part podcast! These are thoughts that came up as I was listening, I guess. I probably could boil them all down to a few neat sentences that make me sound really smart and succinct, but whatever.

peace bro.