Good?

              In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. He had seven sons and three daughters, and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.

 His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom. (Job 1:1-5)

 

As I noted yesterday, Job provides at least one answer to the question of “Can a good and omnipotent God allow bad things to happen to good people?” Yesterday’s passage included God’s claim that Job was “blameless and upright, fearing God and shunning evil.” Today’s passage gives us a snapshot of his goodness. When his sons threw a party, he arranged to have them purified and sacrificed for them in case they’d sinned or cursed God in their hearts. He may not have had all the rules right, but he clearly sought to live by principles that headed in their direction.

So, the next piece of theodicy question is “What constitutes a good person?” For some, good tends to mean little more than that the person is pleasant. If they’re liked, they’re good. For some, it means that no one suspects them of the “big” sins: murder, rape, child or animal abuse. Others might add that good people also don’t have nasty social habits like drinking, smoking, doing drugs, using pornography or prostitutes, or cheating on their taxes.

Another means by which we tend to define “good” has to do with things going a person’s way. When one is good, one becomes rich, powerful, etc. And when one is good and rich, powerful, etc., one gives to others. This is an argument made by Job’s friends, and which Job (and we) refute. We all know of rich, powerful people who aren’t good even though God seems to bless them. And I don’t know what you think, but I have huge difficulties with rich, powerful, etc., people who give what they make in an hour or a day to charity (1/8766^th or 1/365^th of his/her annual income) in a press conference and we’re all supposed to stand in awe of what wonderful people they are. The point for me is not that they give such a small percentage of their income. What they give is up to them. The issue is the fact that their donation of such a small percentage of their income is tied to their making sure as many people as possible know about it. It’s not really about their doing good, it’s about their being seen as doing good.

The terms God used were blameless and upright, fearing God and shunning evil.” How does that compare with our definitions of “good”? Who has the right to decide what constitutes a good person? One man’s rebel hero is another man’s traitor. What if (as Scripture teaches) all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? We may argue all we want that the picky, silly stuff that God considers sin shouldn’t count in the estimation of whether or not we’re good or evil, but wisdom tells us that if God chooses to consider those picky, silly things evil, we should do so as well. What that means is that God doesn’t “let bad things happen to good people” because there are no good people.  This isn’t a happy idea, but it’s one that must be considered if we would be wise.