#theodicy

[girls--complex]

[7pleiades7]

Pandora (n/d) by Sophia Laskaridou (Greek, 1876 – 1965

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Hot take: Crowley and God share the same philosophy

Of all characters in Good Omens, Crowley is the one who criticizes God and his/her actions the most. And I find that kind of ironic regarding the fact that their take on free will and morality appears to be essentially the same.

The fandom appreciates Crowley for his own special way of doing evil. He does not try "to spread misery and panic among the humans" like Shax or manipulate people into sinning like Hastur and Ligur. Instead, he relies on humans' tendency for self-destruction. Crowley creates minor inconveniences, like by shutting down the mobile phone network. Inconveniences that could just be shrugged away, but in fact lead to people lashing out on each other. Or he gives individuals with evil deeds on their mind the opportunity to carry them out, like when he turns the paintball guns of the office staff into real ones.

And he is succesful with that. The series does not make it that explicit, but the book clearly mentions how Crowley is far more efficient at collectings souls for hell than demons like Hastur and Ligur. You could say that Crowley is simply doing what he is obliged to do. But his proud face when he tells Hastur and Ligur about the bit with the mobile phone network, when he talks about giving the office staff machine guns, or when he presents his design for the M25 in hell suggests that he is actually enjoying what he does.

Moreover, although Crowley does not do real evil, he still contributes to it, because, as Waller puts it, "[a] person is infinitely more likely to pull the trigger if they are handed a gun" (p. 23; cited below). Does this mean that Crowley is far more demonic than we admit? Not exactly; I think Crowley actually has high moral standards. He is completely opposed to letting innocents - like the kids during the Flood or Job, Job's children and even Job's goats - suffer.

But the thing with people with high moral standards (and I know this from myself) is: they can be pretty cruel to anyone who does not live up to these standards. Crowley firmly believes in "free will, including the right to murder". But in his opinion, that also means that you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. He does not seem to mind the paintball players being arrested for trying to shoot each other, nor does he seem to have a problem with people going to hell for their evil deeds.

To be fair, Crowley acknowledges that sometimes the circumstances force people to do bad things. That's why he saves Elspeth, since he does not want her to "be damned forever" for committing sins out of poverty and desparation.

But apart from that, he sees testing people's morality as his job. Again, this is not explicit in the series, but in the book he considers demons to "occup[y] the same position as tax inspectors" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 275; cited below) in the universe. And although he does not want innocents to suffer, that's exactly what happens as a result of him tempting people to do bad things, of giving them the opportunity to hurt others.

But if people pass the test, then that's fine for Crowley, too. We can witness this with Jesus. Yes, Crowley even tried to tempt the son of God by showing him all the kingdoms in the world. But Jesus resisted the temptation and Crowley did not seem upset about it. Actually, he seems to respect Jesus a lot for his good character. He possibly even suspected beforehand that Jesus would resist his temptation and saw it more as doing Jesus a favour, because "his travel opportunities are limited".

And although Crowley is convinced that people should deal with the consequences of their actions, he draws the line where said consequences become to harsh or irrevocable. He expresses this when talking to God in season 1: "I know you're testing them. You said you were going to be testing them. But you shouldn't test them to destruction". Crowley does not want to test people to destruction. That's why he made sure that nobody would actually get hurt or killed in the shooting (if you want to read even more about Crowley's moral philosophy, see this and this post by @linipikk and @ilarual).

What does this all have to do with God? Well, I believe God is doing pretty much what Crowley does: he/she is testing people - by setting up the plan for Armageddon, by allowing Satan to destroy Job's wordly goods and kill his children.

And I think the reason why God does this is quite obvious, if you think about it. Because if someone does good things just because God told them so or because they fear punishment if they don't, then that does not make them a good person, it just makes them an obedient one. To really judge the morality of a person, you need to give them the chance to do evil things. I think Aziraphale got this quite right: "They cannot be truly holy unless they also get the opportunity to be wicked".

Giving people the opportunity to be wicked is what Crowley does when he turns the paintball guns into real ones, and it's also what God does when he/she makes the Apocalypse part of "the Great Plan", thereby offering both heaven and hell a justification for their intent to wage war against each other. The same goes for him/her telling angels and demons alike that "Satan and his diabolical ministers may destroy everything Job owns, no questions asked", assuring them that they won't be punished for harming the poor man or not preventing him from being harmed.

By basically giving them free pass with everything they want to do, God creates an opportunity for people to really show whether they're moral persons or not. And like Crowley, who made sure that the paintball players would not die when shooting at each other, God left a backdoor for saving what is worth saving; he/she is not testing people to destruction. Adam has the power to destroy the world, but he does also have the freedom to reject it. Crowley and Aziraphale have the right to kill Job's children or let them be killed, but they also have the right to refuse to do so.

Nevertheless, God also lets everyone face the consequences - may they be good or bad - of what they did. Again, I find it ironic how much Crowley complains about the injustice of his fall, when it was just the logical result of him joining Lucifer's side. You can clearly see his double standard here - he is fine with the notion of actions having consequences when it comes to others, but not when it comes to himself (for more about Crowley struggling with unintended consequences, see this post).

But back to God: God does not only allow evil to happen (like Crowley does), he/she is also responsible for its existence in the first place. If God created everything, then he/she did also create evil. This does not have to mean that God wants evil to happen, but simply that it is necessary that evil exists so that people can make moral choices, just as Aziraphale explains.

Speaking of creation, there's one last possible parallel that I noticed between Crowley and God. The fandom often refers to Crowley as "The Starmaker". But Crowley didn't create stars, he created "a star factorer". And he seemed especially proud of the fact that it would allow the stars to develop on their own, while most stars would "come pre-aged". He did not determine how they should be, but provided them with everything they needed to grow and then simply wanted to watch them unfold before him.

My suspicion is that God did a very similar thing when he/she created humans (and angels, some of them who would become demons). He/she does barely talk to anybody and does not tell humans, angels and demons what to do. Instead, he/she provided them with everything they needed - including the ability to do both good and evil - and just watches what path they will take.

I think that God wants his/her creations to be free, truly free. That's why he/she made it so easy for Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, something even Crowley suspected: "What if I did the right thing [i.e. what God wanted] with the whole 'eat the apple' business?" And freedom does necessarily lead to some people misusing said freedom and causing harm to others. But that's the price that comes with it.

Does this make God evil? Well, that's the core of the question of theodicy believers have been struggling with for millenia. I would answer: at least it does not make God any more evil than Crowley.

And that might indicate that some sort of reconciliation between these two characters is possible. In my opinion, there's a high chance that Crowley will come to the conclusion that his and God's take on free will and morality are not so much different and that he will finally be able to make his peace with God.

So, what do you think of my theory/analysis? Do you agree with me about Crowley and God? Or do you interpret the characters and their motivations in a different way? Let me know!

Works cited:

Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.

Waller, Rhian: Avoiding a contemporary Apocalypse. Examining the Effects of Shifting Good Omens from its Cold War Context. In: Giannini, Erin and Taylor, Amanda (Eds.): Deciphering Good Omens. Nice and Accurate Essays on the Novel and Television Series, pp. 11-29.

[iustuspeccator]

"Soelle does not focus on the theodicy question, How can an all-powerful, all-loving, all-wise God permit suffering, especially suffering of the innocent? She argues that this preoccupation with the motives of God is unanswerable and diverts our attention and energy away from people who are suffering. She accepts that suffering is a part of the world as we know it and asks what it means, where and how we can eliminate its causes, and how it makes us more human. She makes a distinction between suffering we can and cannot end. Those for whom suffering cannot be alleviated most not be abandoned."

Sharon G Thornton, Broken Yet Beloved: A Pastoral Theology of the Cross

[ignorethisatyourperil]

[queenlucythevaliant]

For what it means is this, among other things: that for whatever reason God chose to make man as he is—limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death—he had the honesty and courage to take his own medicine. Whatever game he is playing with his creation, he has kept his own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that he has not exacted from himself. He has himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death. When he was a man, he played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worthwhile.

Dorothy Sayers on the Incarnation, "The Greatest Drama Ever Staged" (emphasis mine)

[apilgrimpassingby]

What Do Y'all Think of This Quote?

If indeed there were a God whose true nature - whose justice or sovereignty - was revealed by the death of a child, or the dereliction of a soul, or a predestined hell, it would be no great transgression to regard him as a malevolent or contemptible demiurge, and to hate him, and to deny him worship, and to seek a better God than he.

David Bentley Hart, The Doors of the Sea

I'm not asking you to agree with it, or disagree with it, just to express your opinions on it.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

I’m glad to see that there are other Christians who are opposed to the idea of theodicy. I agree with Wendy Farley that "a desire for justice" and "anger and pity at suffering" should replace "theodicy's cool justifications of evil". There are too many tragedies to weep over and too many people to love for us to sit in ivory towers and speculate on the nature of good and evil. I have my convictions, and I believe it’s important that one does, but when the rubber hits the road what is actually going to matter is how you love your neighbor. Any theodicy one has or conducts must be practical, action oriented, not abstract. God doesn’t need us to intellectually defend him; he desires that we actually tangibly defend him by doing justice and righteousness and holiness. That defense of our neighbor is how we will bring dikē to theos.