Haiti - part 6 - not God's chastising

I recently received this email regarding my posts on earthquake theology and the earthquake in Haiti not being God's judgment:

A friend sent me a radio commentary:

"VERY INTERESTING

you may need to copy and paste

http://www.irnusaradio.com/our-programs/viewpoint

Scroll down the this program and click on it

01-15-2010 "PACT WITH THE DEVIL" Did God bring judgment on Haiti?"

I listened to this and did a search on the internet to see other points of view -- I saw yours.

There was a flurry of outrage at what Pat Robertson said. I saw one interviewer who had the Haitian Ambassador to the UN in the studio. He acknowledged the voodoo pact, proud of it from a historical point of view (I believe one of their leaders declared Voodoo the national religion), but put forth an argument that there were many things since that time that Haiti had done to benefit the US. It struck me how the interviewer jumped directly back to condemning Robertson, not even seemingly noticing what the Ambassador was saying, or questioning him further on what many have openly called the curse Haiti has suffered over the years.

The scenes of the tragedy in Haiti are horrific. Our prayers and support are for them, of course. Looking up what Christ said in Luke about a tragedy where a tower fell on eighteen, it was interesting His reply.

The Bible talks about God judging the nation of Israel for its unbelief. If one were to acknowledge God to be capable of chastisement, even of nations, would it, to you, be a worthy thing for the nation of Haiti to consider repentance on a national level?

My answer to the respondent’s question has four parts. First, sufficient evil exists in the world that God does not need to cause more evil. The God of love, the God whose unconditional and immeasurable love incomprehensibly manifested itself in Jesus did not “chastise” Haiti.

Second, God can and frequently does bring good things out of bad. National repentance would benefit every nation, including Haiti. However, Haiti does not have an established religion, voodoo or otherwise. Haiti’s sin, like ours, is the failure to love God and others fully.

Third, if the earthquake is God's judgment on Haiti, then helping earthquake victims puts us in the awkward position of mitigating God's judgment. God's call to aid the least among us is clear. Arguing that God chastised Haiti with an earthquake but calls those in other nations to provide disaster aid makes no sense.

Fourth, why would God choose to chastise Haiti, one of the poorest nations in the world? Why would God not chastise a larger, more sinful nation? Singling out Haiti seems capricious; if God is chastising the nations, why not start with the biggest sinner or chastise all simultaneously? The claim that the earthquake represents God's judgment makes God's justice appear extremely unjust.

Finally, God surely would not punish both the innocent and guilty. The earthquake killed many Christians, many good members of the clergy, and destroyed many religious ministry facilities, including the Anglican cathedral. Contending that all of these Christians were part of a voodoo pact is ludicrous. God surely can discriminate more effectively between the innocent and the guilty!

God gives humans the capacity to reason and therefore expects us to reason. Allegations of voodoo pacts may stir the emotions. However, when emotionally charged claims seem to defy good theology, we have a moral obligation to examine those claims in the light of God's love as revealed in Christ Jesus. In the case of Haiti’s earthquake representing God's chastisement, that claim lacks cogency.