Roger Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely autumn stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy, who apparently cannot swim, has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold -- he doesn't want to get his good clothes wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on. Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy? Why or why not?
I'm interested in asking the same question of God: Why does God not have a moral responsibility to do something about the plight of the young boy? Instinctively it seems that if we know about an evil and have power to stop the evil, then we have a moral responsibility to stop that evil. But surely God meets these criteria.
God surely knows what a sorry individual Roger Smith happens to be, and still elects to do nothing. Are God's moral duties the same as ours?
This question seems to have two aspects to it. One is the question of God's moral duties. The other is the question of how his moral duties differ from ours. In order to address whether or not God should do something here, we must ask a few other questions: Is God morally obligated to stop evil by direct action? Is he morally obligated to stop every evil by direct action? Is he morally obligated to act justly in response to every evil? All of these relate to the larger problem of evil. I think it rather evident biblically that God is not the source of evil, or its cause. In the case under review, he did not put the child into the river. But God has also stopped some evils and not others in history. That means that he must have some purpose in allowing various evils to occur. Philosophers generally speak here of God's "morally sufficient reasons" for permitting certain evil events. One thing we know for sure is that God will be a perfect judge in the midst of all evil acts. Roger Smith, even if no one else sees what he did, will face a day of reckoning before God, his just judge.
Another angle here is to remember that for God to end all evil would be for him to end the possibility of mercy for all evil men as well. The parable of the wheat (his redeemed family) and the weeds (unbelievers) is instructive here. God allows the wicked and the guilty to intermingle in the world presently so that the weeds can see God's great glory as a righteous judge and a righteous savior in Christ, and as such God will not act to stop evil until enough evil men and women are brought into the redeemed family. So it is simply a mistake to say that God is doing nothing about evil in the world. He is acting redemptively in time and space in the person of his Son and in the Spirit animated community called the Church.
Another angle here is to remember that for God to end all evil would be for him to end the possibility of mercy for all evil men as well. The parable of the wheat (his redeemed family) and the weeds (unbelievers) is instructive here. God allows the wicked and the guilty to intermingle in the world presently so that the weeds can see God's great glory as a righteous judge and a righteous savior in Christ, and as such God will not act to stop evil until enough evil men and women are brought into the redeemed family. So it is simply a mistake to say that God is doing nothing about evil in the world. He is acting redemptively in time and space in the person of his Son and in the Spirit animated community called the Church.
So it must be the case that since we come to our ethical obligations without comprehensive knowledge of God's sovereign purposes with respect to evil, and thus cannot perceive who must receive exposure to the glories of the gospel, that our moral duties exist in direct proportion to our limited knowledge of God's sovereign purposes. We must defer to God's revelation in Christ then. What does Christ do about evil? What does He command us to do? And what does He empower us to do? That is the sum of our moral duty while God extends the boundaries of His kingdom in this wicked world. He has initiated this great work in Christ; and now I exist to extend the reach of that work in the world. And it must always be remembered that God owes no man mercy. No man is entitled to God's mercy; it flows from his merciful character at his pleasure alone!
So, even though God may not directly intervene to save the drowning boy, it is still consistent with the ethic modeled by Christ for me to do so, because surely saving the boy is the best way for me to proclaim God's redemptive purposes, to "love my neighbor as myself," and thus to proclaim Christ's saving work to the boy. If Roger is not a Christian, then his actions are still measured against the standard of Christ. If any Christian were to be in Roger's position, surely it is clear that the active Spirit of God would prompt him or her to act in keeping with the gospel. Even if it was Roger himself who was drowning, and he was a murderer, it would still be a Christian duty to save him. Why? Because, in short, that is what Jesus did for me! Jesus allowed an evil person sufficient exposure to the gospel to be saved. It is true that he may not receive it and may even turn to kill me, but that says nothing about my moral duty in the moment.
Imagine for a moment that you are a first century Christian, and it is the Apostle Paul himself drowning in that water (before his conversion). Paul is a murderer, and has been hunting down your people. Do you have a moral responsibility to save him?
If I save a murderer, or fail to stop a murderer, is it an offense to the victims? Yes, they are offended to the extent that they are not cooperating with the Gospel. And to whom am I bound by allegiance to favor: the victims and their temporal claim to justice or God and His eternal purposes revealed in Christ?
It is curious that in these kinds of scenarios, Christians so rarely think in terms of the gospel. We are called in everything to be people of the good news. And what is that good news? God has provided forgiveness for sins through the cross of Jesus Christ! Yes, even if it is Roger Smith the murderer who is drowning, it is my duty to save his life, then boldly confront his sin, and then offer the gospel. How can I do anything else?
And here is the point: The reason I am to do this is because that is precisely what God in Christ has done for me!
And by the way, this line of argument extends to the matter of killing in defense of others or self. It does not extend God's redemptive purposes in the midst of an evil world to merely control evil by force. One says that I have a moral responsibility to defend the innocent by killing, and then present the gospel to them. The only problem here has already been discussed--namely, this is not God's program for addressing evil in Christ. His program is to confront evil dialectically, incite it against himself, absorb the evil, be destroyed by it, and then emerge triumphant in resurrection. That is the glory that God would proclaim to the world! One has a moral responsibility to resist evil, but in the manner of Christ! In Christ, God's activity in the world with respect to evil is redemptive, not merely just or preemptive. Presumably God could control evil with a word, but he is pressing for the transformation of evil people. By confronting the evil in the way of Christ, I call for the redemption of evil hearts and not merely the temporal protection of victims. I demonstrate the glory of Christ in overcoming evil and not merely the glory of man's capacity to beat back evil in order to carve out a few more days in this fallen world. Perhaps we could say it this way: Christ has clearly delegated to me the ministry of reconciliation and not the ministry of just retribution. To proclaim reconciliation one must necessarily include the redemptive context of God's justice satisfied at the cross; to proclaim justice alone is to neglect the rich context of redemption.
And note also that if I take this approach with evil, it is simply not the case that I am doing nothing about evil, and it is also not the case that I am responsible for the evil by permitting it. God is clearly permitting evil, but for specific redemptive purposes. The real question is simply this: In the absence of God's direct action, what has he made it clear to me that I should do about evil in the world? (for analysis of the problem of evil see: http://monomaniacy.blogspot.com/2011/01/lecture-series-lecture-12-problem-of.html)
And note also that if I take this approach with evil, it is simply not the case that I am doing nothing about evil, and it is also not the case that I am responsible for the evil by permitting it. God is clearly permitting evil, but for specific redemptive purposes. The real question is simply this: In the absence of God's direct action, what has he made it clear to me that I should do about evil in the world? (for analysis of the problem of evil see: http://monomaniacy.blogspot.com/2011/01/lecture-series-lecture-12-problem-of.html)
