You also earlier concluded that “it is not okay to substitute knowledge for faith.” Again, I don’t believe that this is really what you intend. Faith requires knowledge. If our faith is not based on knowledge, then it is groundless and useless; it then becomes no more than superstition and false hope. Moreover, it is desirable to substitute knowledge for faith; more than that, it is required of us. Is not this the essence of spiritual growth? We move as babes from a naive and ignorant faith to mature faith by knowing God and growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior. Using your illustration of the empty tomb, wasn’t it critical for the women to substitute the knowledge/information about why the tomb was empty for their faith in the sovereignty of God? Would it have been better for them to go their whole lives in faith rather than having the knowledge of the reason for the empty tomb? What God has revealed to us, we are required to know; and it is better to know what God has revealed, and believe it, than to simply have faith in God without knowledge of his revelation. Perhaps a better statement would be “lack of knowledge should not result in lack of faith,” since if God has chosen not to reveal the “whys” of some situation to us, we must proceed in faith based upon the knowledge of what he HAS revealed.

These are not merely academic distinctions. Many in the emerging church movement have seized on these types of ideas (“our quest is not for information” and “it is not okay to substitute knowledge for faith”) to conclude that theology (knowledge/information about God as revealed in His Word) is not important as long as one “has faith” and “loves” his brother. This leads to a groundless religion, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, sacrificing the truth of God’s Word for the sake of “unity” and fellowship, making Christianity little different than universalism. I know this is not what you intended.

As troublesome as the response, “How could a loving God do/permit this?” is the equally common, “God is weeping?” or some such ill-informed response to tragedy–either personal or national. After every cataclysmic event a reporter will surely find someone (often, sadly, a member of clergy) who will remonstrate that God is “saddened” over what has just occurred. This politically correct response lowers God to our level, as only sightseers. It also turns around your statement–”…it is helpful to ask, ‘why am I experiencing this difficulty?’ “–to, “We need to let God know we don’t like this sort of thing, and expect Him to be more proactive in our defense the next time.”