Batman v. Superman and the problem of evil

{No spoilers}  You might not expect a comic book movie to delve into one of mankind's oldest and most fundamental philosophical questions, but Batman v. Superman does just that by utilizing Lex Luthor to ask about how an all powerful and all good God can co-exist with evil/tragedy in our world.  In theology, we call this theodicy, or The Problem of Evil.  Evil, both human caused and natural (disasters/disease/death) does indeed exist, only a fool would try to call the inhumanity of man toward his fellow man anything but evil, and only someone who is heartless would not be troubled by the latest drought/plague/volcano, etc. to spread misery and destruction.  Lux Luthor, played by Jesse Eisenberg, shares his belief that God cannot be both all powerful and all good, a conclusion that apparently contributed to his path toward villainy, an assertion that is not met with a response, per se, by any of the movie's heroes apart from their subsequent self-sacrificial actions.  In the movie, Superman's motives and choices are called into question, because of his power, as characters wonder if Superman must save everyone who is in danger, and if he doesn't, is he responsible for that 'neglect'?  Bruce Wayne/Batman does indeed hold Superman at least partly responsible for the destruction caused in his efforts to fight evil {General Zod from the last Superman movie}.
So, what is the Christian response to the problem of evil?  There are three possible choices: (1) Emphasize the sovereignty of God, as typified by the book of Job, with a "who are you to question God?" response, (2) emphasize the freewill of humanity, as typified by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, who maintained that this is the best of all possible worlds that God could have created because human freewill with its accompanying evil is better than a world of automatons, (3) or attempt to meld some combination of God's sovereignty and human freewill.
A foundational belief that is built into Christian theology, which also has a significant impact upon theodicy, is Original Sin.  The idea that the world was created without flaws, humanity included, but that both humanity and the world around us (i.e. disease, natural disasters, etc.) are consequences of humanity's rebellion against God.  The finale of Christian theology, the End Times, as expounded primarily in Revelation, also posits that God will do away with this world, making a new heaven and new earth, one that is free of these causes of pain and suffering, at the same time that he removes the stain of sin, for good, from humanity.
Another aspect of the Christian response to the problem of evil is to consider the relationship between God and humanity within the analogy of parenting.  God often refers to himself in parental terms.  We know full well the warping danger of withholding consequences from our children, some of whom would become spoiled brats given that level of intervention, others of which would be psychopaths.  God must allow humanity to taste the bitterness of rebellion, of independence from him, if only to allow us to learn the value of obedience.
In the end, the problem of evil isn't going away any more than evil itself.  It will still cause skeptics to doubt God, it will still trouble believers (as it should), but the ultimate answer remains the same: Choose to trust in the goodness of God.

Too dangerous to let them live?

Nicole and I went to the Tuesday evening cheap movies, as is our habit when there is something worth seeing, to see Insurgent, the second in the Divergent series.  I'll say this generically so as to not create a spoiler, in the movie, two primary characters who are identified with the "good guys" shoot two "bad guy" prisoners, one in handcuffs, the other in a prison cell.  The scenes themselves aren't graphic, the movie is PG-13, but still rather disturbing, and certainly a harsh topic for inclusion in a movie geared for teens.  This reminds me of the discussion about the end of the last Superman movie, Man of Steel, where Superman kills General Zod by snapping his neck to prevent him from killing some innocent bystanders.  My friend and neighbor, Pastor Jeff Little from First UMC, objected strongly to that decision because as life-long Superman fan, he was adamant that Superman always has to find a way to win without killing anyone.  With the finale of the Hunger Games due out this fall, and a sequel to The Maze Runner on the way, it seems clear that the topic of killing to protect the innocent, or to advance a worthwhile cause, will continue to be present in the movies.  This is starkly contrasted with the epiphany of Harry Potter at the end of that franchise when he finds pity for Voldemort instead of hatred, and the ending of the latest version of Cinderella, which happily ends with a moment of Christ-like forgiveness for one who doesn't deserve it.

We live in a world with dangerous terrorists, with those willing to blow up churches, mosques, pizza shops, planes, anything and everything in order to kill as many men, women, and children as possible.  Our government routinely orders remote drone strikes in foreign nations as a response to this threat, along with whatever other clandestine means are used to eliminate those who pose a threat, often before they can act.  I'm not offering up a solution to the moral dilemma of having government officials acts as judge, jury, and executioner over the lives of foreign citizens; the quagmire we find ourselves in does not allow for easy answers.  This is simply an observation that art is imitating life, our comic book and dystopian movies that we view as entertainment have come face to face with one of the moral questions that our society has yet to come to grips with.  To save the innocent is indeed noble, but what is it when that saving involves killing others without trial, and what is it when they're killed preemptively?  These are questions worth asking, questions our films are confronting more directly than our government.