“When they use force to exploit the weakness of others and by this means establish their superiority and domination over others, they are not then acting by the power of God, they are not then being vitalized by the life of God, and they are not then proceeding in accord with the will of God. In short, they belong to the realm of evil”.

It doesn’t necessarily involve physical violence. With the best and kindest intentions, we might exploit weakness, dominate etc simply by failing to attend to the relevant power relation, by imposing our idea of what is best on people who for whatever reason (youth, lack of confidence, lack of education, poverty etc) are not able to stand up to us. Becoming what Oswald Chambers once called an Amateur Providence…

It’s so easy to read a passage like this, think of god-awful examples like Piper with his tornado, and get all complacent. But how many times have *I* taken my orders from the “realm of Evil” whilst still fondly imagining that I’m doing God’s work and helping people, giving what I think is good advice, rescuing them from themselves – the list could go on but it’s too depressing. Pastors, teachers, therapists, counsellors, social workers: this warning is for us.

Its seems to me rather dangerous and presumptuous to assume that God somehow owes it to us to do whatever we want as far as our lives and flourishing are concerned, though.

And is it really true that God has no responsibility for us?

I think Herbert McCabe does a much better job at thinking through this in his chapter, “Evil,” in God Matters.

Now, I think one could say however, that in rejecting God by living in violence human being actively remove themselves from God’s life, at least penultimately. And in response to that God may “give them over” to that as Romans 1 says. That I think is quite different than conceiving of God’s power violently, even if it doesn’t answer all questions of theodicy. Since of course nothing can.

Note that this act of wrath is clearly restorative in nature. I think the same can be said of God’s own wrath against sin. There’s certainly a strong theme of this in the OT–God “attacks” Israel precisely for the sake of Israel’s eventual redemption.

In other words, the wrath of God must be seen as an aspect of the love of God.

So what to do with the wrath of God? What is it, how does it square with the language of power, love, and Trinity in this post, and what sense is it included or excluded from our imitation of God?

Bruce’s comment is one that plagues me as well. I imagine I am missing something very obvious or don’t understand the vector of the reasoning, but how might one go about answering it? It becomes particularly poignant when talking with suffering people because it strips the suffering of any meaning or purpose. I don’t believe suffering must be of a purpose, but in the midst of it, “why?” is a natural question. As is “where is God in all of this?” Is God reliable or present in a personal way for anything before the Big Dance? Or is the suffering one left with only future hope to comfort them? I’m not trying to raise another discussion about theodicy, but I feel that when I counsel people my ship keeps running aground on the question of why was good/protection/blessing withheld?

Sorry for all the questions – I really do like the passage- just trying to connect my theology with practice as I walk with folk.
Thanks