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

the songs we sing

NOTE: I am going to make some pretty strong statements below, but understand that it is my way of taking an honest, hard look at my own worship experience and practice. My desire is not to be overly critical, but to open up dialogue by questioning things I have assumed were totally fine and appropriate. In other words, I am preaching to myself. Feel free to listen in.

---------------------

When I am in a church meeting during the singing time, I sometimes find myself silent, unable to get the words past my lips. At times I just need a moment of stillness, time to listen, but other times, the words make me pause because I don't know that I can sing them honestly or with integrity. This is a good thing. We should never mindlessly or heartlessly sing songs just because everyone else is. We should care deeply about what we say in our sung, communal worship.

At their best, songs sung by the gathered body of Christ call to life what is already in us: the hope, the truth, the longing, t…

theology from the margins: God of Hagar

Our contexts have major implications for how we live our lives and engage with our world, that much is obvious. However, we sometimes overlook how much they inform our concepts of God. For those of us occupying the central or dominant demographic in society, we often associate God with power and truth. As a result, our theology is characterized by confidence, certainty, and an expectation that others should be accommodating. For those of us living on the margins of society, our sense of belonging stranded in ambiguity, God is seen as an advocate for the powerless. Our theology leans more toward inclusivity, and we talk less about divine holiness and righteousness and more about a God who suffers. On the margins, the priority is merciful and just action, not correct beliefs. 
There are significant theological incongruences between Christians who occupy the mainstream segment of society and those who exist on the margins. The world of theology has been dominated by Western male thought…

the movement of humility

We live in a context of stratification where much of society is ordered into separate layers or castes. We are identified as upper class, middle class, or lower class. Our language reflects this up/down (superior/inferior) paradigm. We want to be at the top of the heap, climb the ladder of success, break through the glass ceiling, be king of the hill. This same kind of thinking seeps into our theology. When we talk about humility, we think mostly think in terms of lowering ourselves, willfully participating in downward mobility. This type of up/down language is certainly present in biblical texts (James 4:10 is one example), but I believe that the kind of humility we see in Jesus requires that we step outside of a strictly up/down paradigm. Instead of viewing humility as getting down low or stepping down a notch on the ladder of society, perhaps it is more helpful to think in terms of proximity and movement.

Jesuit theologian, James Keenan, notes that virtues and vices are not really…