Skip to main content

oh good


Last week, I was reading some lectures given by Bernard Lonergan in 1959 and quite enjoying them. It was like taking a nice, leisurely walk.  One of the reasons it reminded me of a pleasant saunter in the forest on a spring day was because it gave me a break from reading Ricoeur.  Monsieur Ricoeur's brilliant philosophical mind likes to dive into craterous valleys and leap atop spiky mountains while balancing plates on his head.  At least that's what it feels like to simple, old me.

Anyway, I was enjoying my walk in the park with Lonergan as he discussed the subject of human good when I came upon the following paragraphs.  Abruptly, the walk in the park ended as a huge crevice opened up before me regarding the concept of "good."  Here is the quote:

"...the good is not apart from evil in this life.  In his Enchiridion (Handbook), St Augustine made perhaps one of the most profound remarks in all his writings, and for that matter in the whole of theology, when he said that God could have created a world without any evil whatever, but thought it better to permit evil and draw good out of the evil. 

We must not forget that what God wants, the world God foreknew from all eternity in all its details and freely chose according to his infinite wisdom and infinite goodness, is precisely the world in which we live, with all its details and all its aspects. This is what gives meaning to a phrase that might at times be considered trite: resignation to the will of God.  God does not will any sin, either directly or indirectly.  He wills only indirectly any privation or punishment.  What he wills directly is the good, and only the good.  Yet the good that God wills and freely chooses with infinite wisdom and infinite goodness is this world.  It is a good, then, that is not apart from evil.  It is a good that comes out of evil, that triumphs over evil." [1]

Dagnabit, Lonergan.  Why'd you have to go and say that?  Those are unsettling words!  Don't you know that "good" is squeaky clean?  Bright and shiny and oh so pure?  Never been touched or soiled by dirty, filthy evil?  It has never even looked at anything remotely un-good or for that matter thought about it?  It has never acknowledged the existence of anything less than good, so glorious is its glory?  Ah yes, the romantic idealist was popping up again.  My concept of "good"was something so totally divorced from evil that it would never get its hands dirty.  And fortunately, that is the same separatist image that Jesus shattered when he embraced full humanity.

"Good" deserves more credit than I had been giving it. It is much grander, much more gracious, and much more powerful than my sterile version of it.  I had been thinking of a one-dimensional, fenced-in "good."  Something that keeps itself apart from yuckiness and bad people, unsullied by evil and suffering.  In fact, the "good" that Jesus showed us is a "good" that embraces all the yuckiness and suffering and evil and still remains good. How does it do that?  I don't know.  But I need it!

However, embracing this concept of "good" is troublesome.  Lonergan introduces that bothersome phrase, "resignation to the will of God."  I really, really want to stay in my spring forest, walking along with birds chirping and a soft breeze blowing, everything in a state of heavenly goodness.  But once I acknowledge that this good God, in choosing to make a good world, chose this broken, imperfect mess around me, I become disillusioned.  Where is my utopia?  I want more than this!  I want sweet candy goodness!

This meaty, sinewy, raw idea of goodness is difficult to take in.  This earthy goodness bleeds and cries and dies, but somehow,this goodness remains undefeated.  This goodness embraces suffering, opens its arms to death and injustice, pain and sorrow, and swallows it all. Digests it. Turns it from poison into food -food that strengthens it.  In that case, evil can no longer be seen as the equal opposite of good.  Instead, evil becomes part of the tapestry of a bigger good: a red thread of spilled blood, a scarred circle of healing, a blue string tied to a green string in a reconciliation knot.  This tapestry of "good" is so much bigger than I had imagined.  So much more colourful than my eyes are able to see.  So much less fearful (shouldn't good run away from evil) than I made it out to be; in fact, good knows no fear.  It is deep and wide and broad, searching out the low and yucky, muddy places, just like the love of God.

Open your mouth and taste, open your eyes and see - how good God is. Psalm 34:8 (The Message)

1. Bernard Lonergan. Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan: Topics in Education: the Cincinnati Lectures of 1959 on the Philosophy of Education.  Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988, p. 29-30.

the photo:  the back of a woven rug - a gift from my sister and bro-in-law in Afghanistan

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

what binds us together?

For the past few weeks, I have been reading a book by famed psychiatrist M. Scott Peck which chronicles his travels (together with his wife) through remote parts of the UK in search of prehistoric stones. The book is part travel journal, part spiritual musings, part psychology, and part personal anecdotes. A mixed bag, to be sure, and not always a winning combination. At one point, I considered putting the book aside, not finishing it, but then Peck started writing about community. He is no stranger to the concept. He has led hundreds of community-building workshops over the years, helped start a non-profit organisation dedicated to fostering community, and written a compelling book about the topic, one which greatly impacted me when I read it oh so long ago.[1]

In preparation for a course I am teaching next year, I have been doing quite a bit of study on unity and community. Once you start thinking about it, you see and hear evidence of it everywhere. (See my blog on the impact of b…

job hunting

I am on the hunt for a job. PhD in hand, I am a theologian for hire. The thing is, not a lot of places are hiring theologians these days, and if they are, they are usually looking for scholars with skills and experience outside my area of expertise. Today I found job opportunities for those knowledgeable in Religion, Race, and Colonialism, Philosophy and History of Religion, Islam and Society, Languages of Late Antiquity, Religion, Ethics, and Politics, and an ad for a Molecular Genetic Pathologist. Not one posting for a Dramatic Theologian with  a side order of Spirituality and a dash of Methodology.

I know, I know. My expectations are a bit unrealistic if I believe I will find an exact match for my particular skills. I know that job descriptions are wish lists to some extent, so no candidate is ever a perfect match. I also realize that one must adapt one's skill set according to the requirements of the job and be flexible. But there are so few jobs which come within ten or even…

building the church

Imagine two scenarios: 1) Give every person in the room a popsicle stick. Ask them to come together and put their sticks onto a table. Invariably, you end up with a random pile of sticks on a table. 2) Give every person in the room a popsicle stick. Show a picture of a popsicle stick bird feeder and ask people to come together and put their sticks on a table according to the picture. You will end up with the beginnings of a bird feeder on a table.

What is the difference between the two scenarios? In both, each person brought what they had and contributed it to the collective. However, in the first scenario, there were no guidelines, no plan, and no right or wrong way to pile the sticks. People came, placed their sticks on the table, and walked away. In the second scenario, people were given a plan to follow and as a result, something specific was built. Instead of walking away after they made their contribution, people huddled around the table to watch what was being built. Some were…