Deprivation
There are philosophical consequences to believing that terrible circumstances are a deprivation of God’s goodness, and that negative change is somehow outside God’s will and instead He is responding to or allowing an external force that is not entirely under His command, but instead bad is acting independent of God and subtracting his good intentions. It is said darkness doesn’t exist rather it is the absence of light. Cold doesn’t exist but it is the absence of heat. Bad does not exist; it is the deprivation of good.
If we say God is not in command but instead is reacting or relenting to forces of deprivation that corrupt his good intensions, then we are going to enter dangerous waters. This concept indicates God willingly or unintentionally is not in command. The Book of Job points to the contrary multiple times. For example 23:13-14: “But He [God] is unique and who can turn Him? And what His soul desires, that He does. For He performs what is appointed for me, and many such decrees are with Him.” And essentially the entirety of Job chapter 9, but specifically 9:24: “If it is not He, then who is it?”
The crux of the matter is if it is not God who is in command of all things, but rather He voluntarily or intentionally abdicates his authority to allow a deprivation of His will, then we have a God, that is not God. And this is a problem.
If there is a negative force that is causing bad things to happen, and this results in a void, or shadow over what is right in God’s good creation then we are saying God’s sovereignty is voluntarily truncated by events that do not go as He planned. Wouldn’t it be better to say, and more biblical to state that a perfect omnipotent God is in command of all that occurs in all scenarios. If we put harm in a box that is apart from God, separate from what He intended, then God is not in command. He would then be reacting to negative circumstances, and He is not omnipotent, but is voluntarily permitting bad circumstances to override and have the power to change His will.
This puts God in a category where He is a really nice guy, loves us and wants what is best for us, but has no or limited control over the bad stuff that happens. Instead, he is not responsible for it because he isn’t the one who did it, and while he may take the responsibility for it, it isn’t his fault. He may sympathize with our plight, but an outside force has overruled his good intensions, even if he gave it permission to do so. This idea cannot be reconciled with a biblical understanding of God and Christ’s redemption. It also cannot be reconciled with what God told Habakkuk.
Critics of the concept that God is in command retort that Job and Habakkuk’s perspective is in error because it tarnishes the goodness of God. They reply that to indicate that God is participating in tragedy is blasphemous against His good character. To which I would reply, is your God Santa or a genie that can fit into your rational understanding? Is God bound by your ability to conceptually understand Him? Is it necessary for God to meet your expectations of Him? Or is God, in fact, God, and you are not. The issue may not be His potential involvement in tragedy but rather the arrogance to suggest you first, have the capacity to understand His wisdom, and second have the authority to delineate what He is allowed to be and control.
To close, think of the Cross. God didn’t “allow” the cross to happen. He orchestrated it. The largest of all injustices, God facilitated. And in any tragic event I would suggest you want the God of all creation in command and not some other malicious third party that has the ability to override God and deprive His will. What then would prevent this third party from negating redemption entirely? That is nonsensical, because God orchestrated the cross, the greatest of all tragedies. Scripture indicates God is in command of everything, the question is do we have the stomach to submit to it and see Him as God.