
Alma 14:10-11
And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children ...he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene?
But Alma said unto him...[God] doth suffer that... the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.
Last week we studied Alma 14 in Sunday school. This is among a very few chapters in all scripture (that I know of) that gives a rational for one of religion's most difficult questions: Why does God allow the needless suffering of innocents? This is the most troublesome question I faced on my mission, and one that I’ve pondered many, many times since.
Our Sunday school teacher explained that he took great solace from verses 10 and 11, which explain that the suffering of innocent men, women and children in this world is not meaningless—that God has a reason for staying His hand. While I share this sense of relief that there is a method to what would otherwise be pure madness, I can’t say that I take solace in these verses. To the contrary, they haunt me.
To me, a sense of solace here acknowledges that God has a purpose, but stops short of considering that purpose. So, what is His purpose? As stated in verse 11, God intends to use the suffering and death of His innocent children as evidence against those who caused that suffering and death; as justification for His judgments upon them, which we may well imagine to be harsh.
So the first bit of bad news for us is that the suffering and death of the innocent and helpless is not on God, it’s on us. We’re on the hook. This sobering reality is followed-up with the news that God intends to hold us accountable and exercise judgment against us. This is how I read and interpret these verses, and this is why they haunt me.
To be fair, we're not like the wicked of Ammonihah, who cast women and children into the fire. Instead, we're more like bystanders, watching it all happen from a safe distance as countless millions are thrown into the fires of hunger, disease, disaster and war. If commission is the charge, we're innocent; if omission is the charge, we're guilty.
But can we really be held accountable for people who die in famines in Africa or in obscure local wars on the far side of the world? To the extent that we know about it and can do something to help but don’t, I believe the answer must be 'yes'. In a court of law, this is called criminal negligence or failure to render aid and usually carries a 2-5 year prison sentence.
So do we know enough to be held accountable? Most of us live our lives without thinking too much about our less fortunate brothers and sisters in remote parts of the world. But while this self-imposed ignorance may allow us the bliss of our big houses, expensive cars and calorie-rich diets, it doesn't release us from responsibility. In this age of information, only selective information consumption can shield us from myriad harsh realities in the world at large. The truth is literally at our fingertips if we would know it, and only burying our heads in the sand can shield us from reality.
The next question is whether or not we, having a basic knowledge of the pain, suffering and death in the world around us, can legitimately do something to help. In Mosiah 4, King Benjamin teaches, "I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give. And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned."
So do we have, or do we have not? That is the difference between remaining guiltless and being condemned. It's also a relatively easy question to answer.
The average American makes about $45,000 a year, or around $123 a day. This in a world where 1.1 billion people have consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day. So, half the world--nearly 3 billion people--live on less than $2 a day.
Each year in the US, we spend more on trash bags than 90 other countries spend on everything. In other words, the receptacles of our waste cost more than all of the goods consumed by nearly half the worlds nations.
Since taking office, George W. Bush has tripled American aid to Africa and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010, to nearly $9 billion. How much is $9 billion? It’s $5.7 billion less than Americans spend on dog and cat food each year.
Every day in the developing world, 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s 1 child every 5 seconds. In the US, we spend over $38 billion annually on diet foods, diet aids, and weight loss programs because 60% of our population is overweight and 25% are clinically obese.
So we spend $38 billion each year to loose weight, $40 billion on our pets, $110 billion on fast food, $20 billion on pornography, $587 billion on gambling, $31 billion on cigarettes and $58 billion on alcohol. All while 820 million people are undernourished, consuming less than the minimum amount of calories necessary for health and growth. And to top it all off we have the gall to ask, "How could God allow this to happen?".
But dark ironies aside, the answer to whether or not we have something to give, is a resounding yes. The real question is whether or not we're willing to take some of what we have--not only wealth but time, talents and energy--and give it away.
More to come...
1 comment:
That's one of the best articles I've read in a long time. Very thought-provoking.
Greed/selfishness plagues this nation. While we, as individuals, should certainly give more of ourselves, I question how helpful we are being by donating money to poverty-stricken nations. An entire nation that's suffering is generally facing a bigger problem: corrupt government. This seems to hold true for most of Africa.
I absolutely hate the old GOP "wisdom," that you give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for life, or one of the countless similar phrases. It seems to excuse people from giving their fish. But what could we do to create long-term solutions? If we poured 100x as much money/food into the hands of the poor, are we doing them any favors in the long run?
Just some thoughts.
/Amy's friend
Post a Comment