Necktop Computer concept
Here is a snippet from a paper I did as a new officer going
back on the session. We were required to do a faith journey
and optionally to raise theological issues. I raised a
number of them and one was the problem of suffering where I
bring up the "necktop computer" idea. If you by any remote
chance would like to see the whole paper I'll send it
along.
Problem of suffering
You’ve heard this posed before: If God is all powerful and
loving, why is there suffering in the world? Currently the
most satisfying answer for me is Rabbi Kushner’s in his book
“When Bad Things Happen to Good People”. Basically he says
that God is a God of justice and goodness and not power, in
other words, and this may sound heretical, that God is not
omnipotent. He notes that the Bible repeatedly speaks of God
as the special protector of the poor, the widow, and the
orphan, without raising the question of how it happened that
they became poor, widowed, or orphaned in the first place. I
see some analogy, albeit weak, to the power we have as
loving parents. We did everything in our power to keep our
children safe. We walked them safely to the school bus, but
we were powerless to prevent the bus from running over a
nail, that led to a puncture, that led to a wreck, that led
to an injury to our child, that led to suffering. I find it
easier to understand a God who cares for me in this way and
perhaps who suffers with me. And I see no less demand upon
us to honor and glorify Him and to treat his Son as Lord and
Savior than the demands upon us related to an omnipotent God
(who mysteriously is a party to suffering).
I realize that basing theology on what ideas I find
satisfying and easier to grasp is not necessarily the way to
try to address the theodicy question. Perhaps it is better
to just admit that it is one of those questions whose
framing and interpretation may be beyond our grasp. Isn’t it
presumptuous in the extreme to think that we can answer
every question that we can ask?
I’d like to elaborate on that. It is somewhat an aside, but
to me it is central in any discussion of theology or
religion – to acknowledge that we are in fact creatures with
limitations. When we are asked a question, we are being
asked to process it with our brains. I find it helpful to
look at our brains as being
"necktop computers", which is what they are.
Computers are made of finite parts and just as there are
limits to what store-bought computers can do, there are
limitations on our necktop computers. Computers can perform
some computations, make some judgments, make some
predictions, answer some questions, but not others. And
necktop computers are made with stuff you can find at the
local Kroger’s. When we face a question like the theodicy
question, why do we think we can necessarily process that
question and deliver an answer? Job, after being lectured
out of the whirlwind, I think finally got it right in the
last chapter, when he says to God in verse 3:
"[You said,] 'Who is this that belittles my advice without
having any knowledge [about it]?' Yes, I have stated things
I didn't understand, things too mysterious for me to know.
[…After all I just have this little necktop computer…]
Although the issue of suffering may be beyond our
understanding, we do know that when we suffer that God
provides friends, family. the church and the Holy Spirit
(the Comforter) for support...