Greg Boyd would be unable to bring himself, for example, to think that God could possibly have been behind the Haiti earthquake (I wonder if his world view has been shaped by his suffering over his autistic son).
Greg Boyd is definitely a smart man. Every smart person allows his theology to be shaped, somewhat, by his experience. That is one thing that keeps our theology connected to reality. For example, my having children of my own worked on my own understanding of God's character as a father. As a result, I have seen certain verses about God's dealings with His sinful children differently (more accuratey, I think) than I had previously. Those whose minds are always full of scripture cannot help but to re-examine relevant scriptures in light of new experiences.
However, we can't allow our experience to dislodge us from those realities which are knowable only by divine revelation, such as we have in the scriptures. I have suffered numerous tragedies. Though having an autistic child has not been one of my experiences, some of mine would probably rank right up there with that. These experiences have been filtered through my commitment to scripture so that I have been able to make sense of them.
One scriptural truth that has become more real to me through my experiences is the transitory nature of life, and the immensity of eternity. It is through this lens that I see human sufferings, including my own. Paul said that the sufferings of this present life "are not worthy to be compared" with what lies beyond (Rom.8:18). Few men can document a greater number of afflictions than those endured by Paul (for a partial list, collected in the early stages of his ministry, see 2 Cor.11:23-33). Yet, Paul regarded these agonies as "light affliction" when contrasted with the "eternal weight of glory" that he anticipated (2 Cor.4:17).
Paul had this view, not because he didn't know how bad suffering can be, but because he had an accurate eternal perspective on these matters. When seeking to impugn God's character, atheists always point to some horrible case of an innocent child, undeservedly suffering some unspeakable agony. These horrible realities exist. However, Paul (who experienced such things on a daily basis) did not regard them unbearable, as he saw them through the lens of God's eternity.
We might say, "but not every suffering person has that knowledge of eternal comfort and reward to make their sufferings bearable." We might as easily argue that Paul's God was not equally accessible to all who will call upon Him, and not as willing to give enabling grace to any sufferer who might turn to Him for mercy. We are in no position to assess exactly how much grace God may in fact be giving to any given sufferer, which he or she could in no way communicate to us.
Some, in previous discussions here, expressed deliberate disregard the many passages in scripture in which God specifically says He is the one sending a judgment (e.g., Noah's flood, or the destruction of Jerusalem) which killed and terrified millions of people, including children and relatively innocent adults. One party and I have had long debates about these things. It becomes frustrating when you can quote any number of verses in scripture that plainly declare a thing to be true, but the Christian arguing against you simply says (in effect), "I don't accept those verses as inspired by God, because they rub me the wrong way."
(To be more accurate, that person's statements are that he does not accept any scripture that seems to him to be unlike Jesus. However, one has to ask, from whence do we learn anything about what Jesus was like, and is there any way to determine, from those sources, whether Jesus agreed or disagreed with the controversial verses in question? If Jesus had no problem with the Old Testament scriptures—or with His own declarations of God bringing judgment on Jerusalem, for that matter—then it seems disingenuous to call Jesus as a witness against them.)
This is, indeed, allowing one's experiences and sentiments to shape theology in an unhealthy way. It is like saying, "I will use scripture to support notions that I like, but will reject the scriptures that teach what I don't like." If we are going to form our theology in this manner, why not simply leave the Bible out of the equation altogether, and just go with our hunches? The scriptures only complicate matters when we give them any say at all, but not complete authority.
I'll go with Paul's solution. His nagging affliction, which he called a "thorn in the flesh," was both from Satan and from God—from Satan, because it was his messenger; from God, because Jesus specifically chose not to remove it in response to Paul's repeated prayers, and said, "Instead, I'll give you grace" (2 Cor.12:7-10). Paul never doubted, thereafter, that his affliction was in the will of God, and that He was using it for His glory and Paul's ultimate good. I doubt that this made the suffering any less painful—but I also seriously doubt that Paul remembers it today.
