Does God Make Evil Things?
Considering the implications of the doctrine of creation
What is evil? How do we understand it? How do we talk about? Is evil a thing? More importantly (perhaps most importantly), does God make evil things? Global Methodists in particular have been discussing these questions this week, which have arisen in some of the discussion around Monday’s article, “One major thing that missing from Global Methodist doctrine.” In that essay I argued for a classical Christian doctrine that contains three basic components: (1) God made everything from nothing, (2) everything God made is good, and (3) God creates as a free expression of his love.
Some of the discussion around that essay focused on the question of how the fall affects created goodness. The question came up in a comment on the original essay, in a Facebook thread, and on at least one podcast. Once creation is plunged into the corruption that results from the sin of our first parents, is any part of creation essentially evil? Are we essentially evil? Does God make us evil? In this follow-up article, I’ll point you to a brand new resource that helps us with these questions. So, keep reading.
As a brief aside, the fact that we Wesleyans are raising questions about how to understand the goodness of creation adds urgency to the suggestion that we Global Methodists should consider including a statement on the doctrine of creation in our proposed Articles of Faith. We haven’t had a statement on creation in our doctrinal standards. We need clarity on biblical and historic components of the doctrine of creation.
Goodness across Christian Theology
I’ve been working through the brand new book Love Divine: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology by Thomas McCall and Jason Vickers. It’s a tremendous resource that I recommend without hesitation or reservation. In fact, I’ll be interviewing McCall and Vickers for an upcoming episode of the Theology Project podcast. (Read to the end to find out how you can contribute a question!) One of the strengths of the book is the way they interact with thinkers both from the Wesleyan tradition and from broader Christian orthodoxy.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks for supporting Theology Project through the Amazon links in this post.
As any work of systematic theology should, McCall and Vickers include a chapter on the doctrine of creation. The chapter is actually titled, “The Goodness of Creation,” in which they engage the central components of the doctrine in detail. Their discussion of the goodness of creation is helpful in the way shows broad agreement on the goodness of what God has made. They also draw attention to the beauty of God’s continued love for his good, though deeply, deeply damaged, world. Here are a few extended quotes that summarize key sources:
The basic goodness of creation is a doctrine affirmed again and again throughout the development of Christian doctrine. It is a staple of the theology of early Christianity. Athanasius affirms that “God is good, or rather is essentially the source of goodness” (144).
If God is the source of goodness, the work of his hands is good, not evil. Athanasius was particularly interested in the relationship between creation and the incarnation. McCall and Vickers continue saying that God
has, in the person of the Son, also become incarnate in it to restore it to the goodness from which and for which it exists…Gregory of Nyssa places special emphasis on the fact that humanity was created to “participate in divine goodness.” Evil is, then, a “privation of the good” (144),
This theme is a pillar of medieval and early modern scholastic theology. For instance, Arminius says that “creation is a communication of the good according to its proper inner nature.” Richard A Muller points out how close Arminius’s doctrine is to Aquinas’s: “Very much like Aquinas…Arminius holds the identity of being with goodness so that he can assert both that all things have their esse by participation in the divine esse and that all existent things are good by reason of their participation in the goodness of God” (144).
Because creation is good, Pseudo-Dionysius reasons, we should know that “evil is not an inherent part of nature as a whole,” and he likewise denies that there is “evil in our bodies” or that the body is “the cause of evil in the soul.” He says that “matter cannot be evil,” for if it “has being in no way at all, then it is neither good nor evil,” but if “it has some kind of being then it must derive from the Good, since every being owes its existence to the Good.” The doctrine of the goodness of creation is thus a direct correlate of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and the doctrine of the incarnation. God spoke the universe into existence and called it good, and then the Word of God became flesh to redeem and sanctify those material creatures made in God’s image (144-145).
Without going into extensive additional analysis, we could summarize the tradition this way: God is good. Because God is good, God makes good things, and God does not make evil things. Matter is not evil. Created substance is not evil. By implication, if God created evil substances, God would be the author of evil. But God is not the author of evil. Yes, we humans are totally depraved. Yes, we have original and actual sin. But that does not mean that sin is part of our essence. The tradition has consistently said that evil does not have its own existence but is a privation of the good. That does not mean that evil is simply the absence of good but that evil is a stunningly profound and powerful corruption of God’s good creation. I would say it’s difficult to overstate the extent of that corruption. But, and we must maintain this, God does not create in such a way that evil is ever an essential component of any apart of his creation.
The Beauty of Perfect Love
McCall and Vickers go on to reflect on a passage from Julian of Norwich in which she describes the seeming insignificance of creation. In her vision, she saw something in her hand as small as a hazelnut. As she wonders what it is she holds, she hears, “it is all that is made.” That discovery leads to the thought that in comparison to the infiniteness of God, all that is made is so small that it might “suddenly fall into nothingness.” It appears insignificant. Then she hears and reflects:
“It endures, and ever shall endure, because God loves it. And so do all things partake of being: by the love of God.” In this little thing I saw the threefold nature: that God made it, that God loves it, and God keeps it.
God creates good things. And even when his good creation is corrupted by the alien presence of sin and evil, as horrific as it is, God still loves the works of his hand. He loves what he has made to the extent that he enters into in the person of Christ to redeem it and restore it from every corruption. Evil is the enemy, not the essence, of God’s creation.
Upcoming Interview
As I indicated above, I’m interviewing Tom McCall and Jason Vickers next week for an upcoming episode of the Theology Project podcast, which will be available on YouTube and on your favorite podcast platform. We’ll be discussing their brand new book Love Divine: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology (be sure to grab a copy!). What questions would you like me to ask? Paid subscribers can propose questions in the comments below on this post. I’ll read every suggestion and pick one or more to incorporate into the conversation.
Take the Next Step
If Theology Project has been helpful to you, here are a few ways you can support the work:
Subscribe to receive new free articles.
Share an article with a friend or post it on social media.
Become a paid subscriber to help sustain and expand this ministry while gaining access to exclusive content.
Buy me a coffee to drink while I’m writing my next article (use this link).
Every subscription, share, and recommendation helps more people rediscover the Bible they didn’t know they had.